Category archive: Roger Federer
Let's take them in order of ranking:
ATP No. 1 Novak Djokovic: Given what Djokovic did in 2011, it's easy to forget just how tough Rafael Nadal is on clay. Djokovic has said he feels under no obligation to repeat his feats of 2011, but even a slight drop in his level of intensity would open the door for his rivals. Nole has said he's targeting the French Open title, but his prospects of winning it will decline if we see a Nadal resurgence.
No. 2 Rafael Nadal: Can you say "payback"? This is the first time since he was ambushed by Djokovic in 2011 that Nadal will be back on his home turf of Euro clay, starting Monday in Monte Carlo. He's been the champ for seven years in a row (his record at the Monte Carlo Masters: 39-1). Given that, it took guts for Djokovic to enter Monte Carlo. Should they meet in the final, the results will probably have long-term repercussions.
No. 3 Roger Federer: At 30, and with his record, Federer has nothing to prove. But another excellent clay-court season will keep him in good shape physically and mentally for Wimbledon and the Olympic Games, both of which will be on grass. And bear in mind that it was Federer who ended Djokovic's unbeaten streak in 2011 in the Roland Garros semis -- proving, once again, that for most of his career he's been far and away the second-best player on clay (behind Nadal).
No. 4 Andy Murray: He came into the clay-court season last year in a serious slump, and used the red dirt to sort out his game and get back in his top-five groove. This year he'll sally forth more confidently, having avoided another post-Australian swoon. I don't think Murray's full clay-court potential has been tapped yet. Last year he played a sneaky-good four-set match against Nadal in the Roland Garros semifinals. He could surprise everyone and bag his first major on red clay.
No. 5 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: The Frenchman made great progress over the past six months, but he's had serious trouble cracking the code on clay. Admittedly, this is kind of a French thing; you do well at Monte Carlo or Rome and -- heaven forbid -- the next thing you know your countrymen are thinking you might win at Roland Garros! Tsonga didn't win three matches in a row on clay during the entire spring last year; he needs to show he can perform on the dirt and contend for his national championships.
No. 6 David Ferrer: It's simple. This guy needs to show that he can beat the top players in the top events. Beyond that, it's all been-there, done-that for Ferrer at this time of year.
WTA No. 1 Victoria Azarenka: I don't know why there's so much talk about Azarenka's need to demonstrate that she can play on clay; she won Marbella last year and lost only to players who went on to win the title at every other spring clay tournament but one (Stuttgart, where Azarenka retired during her first-round match). But given her start to the year, she needs to do well on clay only to enhance her chances at the French Open.
No. 2 Maria Sharapova: I'd bet she wants to maintain the momentum she's built up this year, to keep the youngsters ranked below her at bay. And that is a tougher job for her on clay than any other surface. Last year, Sharapova surprised everyone, including herself, when she won Rome. But she has a lot of points to defend and will certainly feel some pressure.
No. 3 Petra Kvitova: She came within a hair's breadth of taking the year-end No. 1 ranking in 2011, but she's been a bust since she made the semifinals of the Australian Open two months ago. She needs to win matches. Many matches. And soon.
No. 4 Agnieszka Radwanska: This young lady has one big problem: It's called Azarenka. Radwanska has lost to the No. 1 four times this year, and she's won every other tournament she's played (we won't count that match she had to surrender via walkover in Kuala Lumpur). Radwanska has to put her foot down and take a stand, because her tricky, counter-punching game is ideal for clay.
No. 5 Samantha Stosur: It's getting to the point that she needs to do something, and pretty quickly, to retain her credibility as a player of the first order -- a reputation she earned with that great win at the U.S. Open last year. You can play your way back into form on clay (just ask Murray, who did it last year), and that's just what this former French Open finalist needs to do.
No. 6 Caroline Wozniacki: The assignment is simple: Stop the bleeding. Wozniacki embarked on the year at No. 1, but she's been eclipsed and has left many thinking that her window of opportunity to win a major is closing -- fast. She needs to show that she can fend off the threats represented by vastly improved players like Kvitova, Radwanska and Azarenka, as well as veterans like Sharapova, Li Na and Serena Williams. It's a tough assignment for the defense-minded Dane.
Azarenka's triumph over Maria Sharapova in the women's final at Indian Wells on Sunday was a blowout (Azarenka won 6-2, 6-3), the kind that ATP No. 1 Djokovic became famous for during his amazing run in the first half of last year. The WTA No. 1 handled Sharapova's gale-force groundstrokes with aplomb, and she exposed Sharpova's overreliance on the sheer power of her serve.
Sharapova held just three times in nine attempts, even though she hit only three double faults. It was a testament to Azarenka's return and ground game.
John Isner could be forgiven for relying even more heavily on his serve, and in the men's final against Federer, he held on all but two occasions. Still, Federer won it in straight sets -- and it wasn't because he held such a glaring advantage in the ground game.
Federer prevailed 7-6 (7), 6-3 because he handled Isner's serve when it really mattered. And he took such good care of his own serve that he saved the only three break points Isner saw all afternoon.
Federer's performance against the 6-foot-9 American, who bumped Djokovic from the tournament in the semifinals, was especially noteworthy because he's 30 years old. If that great former champ Pancho Gonzalez is to be believed, the first thing that goes when a player gets older is not the legs, it's the eyes. Gonzalez believed that the older you became, the harder it was to pick up the ball coming off an opponent's racket and to get a good jump on where it was headed.
Federer's success suggested that there's nothing wrong with his vision. Granted, Isner eschewed the obvious strategy that some coaches might have suggested: "Hit the biggest serve you can and hope for the best." He rarely approached that magic 140 mph mark and clearly believed that mixing it up and making good use of the kicker and the serve to the body would reap greater rewards than trying to nail aces to either corner of either box.
It wasn't a bad strategy, and it suggests that Isner accepts the reality that in tennis you need to be able to rally and to create and set up points if you want to win with any consistency. And truth be told, Isner showed real talent for playing out points without allowing them to become rallying contests in which he's almost certainly destined to be outmaneuvered.
But the approach put Isner at risk because it enhanced Federer's chance of getting his racket on more serves. And one of the all-time Grand Slam champion's least-heralded attributes is his ability to get the stick to meet the ball. Against a superior rallier like a Nadal or Djokovic, just getting the ball back isn't good enough. But against Isner, it was.
The most critical game of the match, and the one that sealed Isner's fate, was the seventh game of the second set, with Isner serving at 3-all. At 15-all, Federer made two returns and was in sufficient control to hit semi-chip shots that lured Isner to the net. Federer made both passing shots to put Isner in a 15-40 hole.
Isner's next serve was a clever one, intended to jam Federer, but the receiver sidestepped and blocked the ball back with his backhand. Isner again had to come to the net, and this time a passing shot handcuffed Isner and forced a backhand error. It was the only break Federer needed, even though he broke Isner again to win the match.
Federer's eyes played an enormous role in this match. He saw the ball well and saw it early, even when it was melting off Isner's racket in a blur. I'm not saying Gonzalez was wrong about the toll of age, just that if the eyes are the first to go, Federer doesn't have anything to worry about yet.
That's how life is these days for the all-time Grand Slam singles champ. He's won 33 of his past 35 singles matches and carried off five singles titles -- including that of the 2011 ATP World Tour Finals. Not bad work for a guy who's over 30 and thus, at least theoretically, is going downhill.
With the win over Andy Murray in Dubai the other day, Federer has also beaten another member of the elite big four in the final of a single-elimination non-major tournament for the first time in well over a year (the previous time was 2010, when he got the better of Djokovic in Federer's home town of Basel, Switzerland).
Now he's got people wondering: Can he really surge and threaten the two men who have stolen his thunder for two years now, or has he pulled off this streak with smoke and mirrors, accessories provided by the fast indoor and outdoor courts on which he's flourished -- slick surfaces on which no Grand Slam events are played?
It's a fact that nobody, but nobody, can match Federer's versatility and shot-making prowess on courts at the fast end of the spectrum. Murray, who beat Djokovic in the semis at Dubai, conceded as much. Analyzing how Federer won the tight first set (the scores were 7-5, 6-4), the No. 4 player recalled a few critical Federer winners and told the press: "You get a lucky shot here or one great shot and you can break the set wide open. So I think that was the difference in the first set."
He added: "I think that the indoor season and the surfaces like this one, I mean, if there were more tournaments on these courts, I think [Federer] could definitely be No. 1 in the world for the next few years. It really suits his game well. Just so many of the courts are so slow now."
Then Murray summed up Federer's dilemma neatly when he noted: "Indian Wells and Miami are going to be very, very different to here. Much slower court, which hopefully will suit my game a little bit better."
Last year, Federer made the semis at both of the upcoming Masters. At Indian Wells, he lost a close three-setter to Djokovic -- but remember it was before anyone, perhaps including Djokovic himself, understood just how glorious a run he was embarking on. At Miami, Federer played one of the worst matches of his career on a big stage, losing to Nadal 6-3, 6-2 in a listless, almost petulant performance.
Djokovic has good reason to be wary of Federer, especially if he can't muster the same form he had last year at this time. That's a real possibility, as we saw in his loss to Murray. And the last time I checked, Federer and Nadal are 5-5 on hard courts, although Nadal recently has carried the biggest days on outdoor hard courts (two wins at the Australian Open and the one in Miami in their past three meetings).
We don't really know much about Nadal's prospects; he hasn't played since he lost that Australian Open final to Djokovic. Federer, on the other hand, is an open book.
And after he won in Dubai, he said: "I think I was just confident. I was playing aggressive. I was focused. I didn't doubt my ability. I'm defending much better than maybe I was in the middle of last year, where I felt like I couldn't come out of tough defensive positions anymore."
If Federer's own assessment about his ability to transition from defense to offense is accurate, he may be a tough out in the upcoming Masters events.
It sure beats watching Novak Djokovic beat up on beleaguered Rafael Nadal yet again, right?
Of course, Nadal wasn't in Dubai to challenge Djokovic, or anyone else. He may have regretted that decision to skip the Arabian shootout when he saw how easily Murray -- whom Nadal beat in three Grand Slam semis last year -- crushed Djokovic.
On the other hand, Federer licks his chops when he gets Nadal in his sights on a fast hard court, so maybe it was a good idea to fight shy of this event and leave it to the two other members of the big four to vie for the prize.
In some ways, it's a welcome decision here because Federer-Murray is the rivalry nobody talks about. (There's only so much ink, real or digital, that anyone can expend on rivalries.) But I can think of at least three reasons it may be the most interesting:
1. The head-to-head: Murray leads the rivalry 8-6, and there's nothing misleading about that stat. Incredibly, all their meetings have been on hard courts (as is the upcoming Dubai final) and neither man has been able to dominate since the beginning.
Murray had a four-match win streak spanning 2008 and 2009, but Federer responded immediately with three wins of his own. It's a much less lopsided H2H than, say, Federer versus Nadal, or Nadal versus Djokovic.
2. The matchup: The first big question in this one will be: Are Murray's defensive and counterpunching skills up to the task of blunting Federer's offense? But there's a related question in play, too, which is: Is Federer's return game good enough to worry Murray?
In the semis, Federer had six break-point opportunities against Juan Martin del Potro but was unable to convert any of them. Murray, by contrast, made good on four of the five break points he saw in his win over Djokovic.
The good news for Federer fans is that the ATP No. 3 allowed DelPo no break points at all, while Murray allowed Djokovic three. (He converted one.)
3. The stakes: This is where the mental and emotional factors may come into play. Although this can't be called a "must win" for either man, Federer needs to reaffirm that he can win big matches during the regular season (he does just fine at the ATP World Tour Finals).
Federer hasn't beaten a fellow member of that big four in the final of a non-major elimination tournament since his win over Djokovic in Basel (Federer's hometown tournament) in October 2010.
For Murray, this match provides an opportunity to build on the momentum he accumulated in Australia, where he slugged it out with Djokovic in a grueling five-set war. The brutal final (Djokovic over Nadal) overshadowed that match, but that semifinal performance by Murray rekindled his self-belief. And unlike last year, when Murray went into a terrible slump after losing the Australian Open final to Djokovic, the Scot hasn't missed a beat in Dubai, his first tournament since Melbourne.
Murray hit No. 3 for a brief period last fall, only to see Federer regain that spot with a strong late-season drive. If Murray can handle Federer in Dubai after eliminating Djokovic, he'll have every right to feel like he's right on the rear bumper of the top two players in the world, and that constitutes progress in his continuing effort to win that elusive, first Grand Slam title.
AP Photo/Rob GriffithVictoria Azarenka has yet to lose a match in 2012.So how about today you slip into my shoes and try to decide which of the five major tournament results of the weekend is the most resonant and makes for the most intriguing story?
In Rotterdam, land of the old masters, Roger Federer demolished Juan Martin del Potro, playing tennis that might have brought a smile to the face of Rembrandt himself. In Bogota, virtually unknown No. 174 Lara Arruabarrena-Vecino (I wonder, does the cup engraver get paid by the letter?), just 19 and playing in only her third WTA main draw, shocked Alexandra Panova. Never mind that the top seed in Bogota was No. 56 Marina Erakovic. There's still a lot of real estate between the rankings of the champ and the frustrated top seed.
On red clay in Sao Paolo, Nicolas Almagro successfully defended his Brasil Open title, while on an indoor climate-controlled court in San Jose, Milos Raonic also went undefeated at the same tournament for the second year running. And in Doha, new WTA no. 1 Mrs. Whooo (aka Victoria Azarenka) ran her undefeated streak for the year to 17 matches and her title count to three, including the Australian Open.
So where do you start? Much as we like Almagro, and wonder just how much of a dampener his countryman Rafael Nadal has put on his career (Almagro has won 11 titles, all on clay), we'll pass it by. Same goes for the win in Bogota by Arruabarrena-Viceno; somebody was going to win that thing, right?
Federer's win is a tempting subject -- he crushed del Potro, adding further credence to the theory that Delpo just hasn't recaptured that 2009 magic. But Delpo remains a work in progress and we already know Federer can win these things until the cows come home. It's the majors where he gets a little sideways.
That leaves Raonic and Azarenka. Unlike that other giant, del Potro, the 6-foot-5 Raonic seems to be not just as good but better than he was before he lost that big chunk of 2011 to injury and surgery. The 21-year-old from Ontario became the first two-time ATP tour winner this year (he also won Chennai), and lost his serve just once while raining down more aces (61) than anyone else in San Jose.
Still shell-shocked after the final, Dennis Istomin remarked: "I won just four points on his serve, which makes it very difficult to win the match."
That Istomin, he didn't just fall off the turnip truck, did he?
You could look at Raonic's win as a set-up for next week, given that he's the No. 4 seed in Memphis and the draw has him on track to meet the top seed in the final, that man being ... John Isner. Could that be interesting?
Still, as great as it is to see Raonic's continued progress, the story of the week in my book was Azarenka. The draw in Doha was loaded; Maria Sharapova and Petra Kvitova were the only two top-eight players who took a pass, and Azarenka slashed her way through all comers. In the semis, she rolled an ankle and still managed to rout Agnieszka Radwanska (6-2, 6-4), whose simple and effective game plan is, "just get back one more ball."
But the really impressive thing about Azarenka is how eager, fresh and determined she appears to be, how easily she bears the pressure, and how obviously she enjoys demolishing her opponents. Those qualities have been in short supply in recent years, as so many of the WTA's most promising and gifted players opted to turn off the avenue of champions onto easy street. Why slip that target on your back when you could walk the red carpets and rake in the big money so long as you pop up to win something or other, now and then?
Azarenka's results since she won her breakthrough major in Melbourne suggest that she's made from different material, and it seems that she was wonderfully tempered during a 2011 season that might have permanently damaged the confidence of a less able competitor. Although she climbed high in the rankings and proved herself in routine tour events, at the majors she kept running afoul of hot-handed rivals -- Li Na, Kvitova, Serena ...
Now, she's playing like she wants a little payback. She appears to be going all Djokovic on us. And that's a story the WTA certainly could use.
Most disappointing (WTA): Sam Stosur's artful and gritty performance at the U.S. Open was overshadowed by the controversy in which opponent Serena Williams became embroiled early in the second set. That was a bummer, but not as much of one as another match in which Williams featured.
At Stanford, about a month before that U.S. Open final, resurgent (WTA No. 5) Maria Sharapova was paired in a second-round match with No. 169 Williams, who just weeks earlier had returned to the fray after missing almost an entire year due to two major injuries.
Interested parties tried to hype this up as a clash of great rivals, because both women had been No. 1 and were multiple Grand Slam title winners and mega-stars. They hadn't met in more than a year; perhaps Sharapova could improve on that 2-6 career head-to-head record with Williams.
But it was all for naught. In the greatest letdown WTA match of the year, Serena crushed Maria 6-1, 6-3. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Most disappointing (ATP):
Novak Djokovic had not yet emerged as the doomsday stroking machine he would become when Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal met in the semifinals of the Miami Masters. Men's tennis at that point was still very much about the Roger-Rafa rivalry. Nadal led it, 15-8 at the time, but he appeared to be struggling a bit. Meanwhile, Federer already had won a tournament in 2011 and gone deep in his other three outings, losing each time to Djokovic (one final and two semis). The speed and bounce of the hard courts at Crandon Park seemed to favor Federer.The match was played at night, before a highly charged SRO crowd. And it turned out to be a total dud -- oddly similar to the WTA Sharapova-Williams match at Stanford. Federer looked listless and out of his depth, unhappy and unsure of himself the entire way. He was broken four times in Rafa's 6-3, 6-2 win, but it wasn't as close as the scores suggest.
Greatest moment (WTA): Although Petra Kvitova's win at Wimbledon (beating Sharapova in the final) was magical, her performance at the year-end WTA championships was the more impressive result -- at least for her long-term prospects.
Rebounding from the pure shock of having won Wimbledon in just her 13th appearance at a Grand Slam event, the 21-year-old from the Czech Republic recovered her composure by the early fall and went on a 12-match winning streak to end her year.
Kvitova won all five of her matches at the season-ending championships, winning back-to-back three-setters over Stosur and Victoria Azarenka, respectively, in the semis and final. By the time it was over, Kvitova was breathing -- hard -- down the neck of year-end No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki and had amply demonstrated that her win at Wimbledon was no fluke.
Greatest moment (ATP): What else? Djokovic's rifle-shot, forehand cross-court service return winner that dispatched the first of two Federer match points in their semifinal at the U.S. Open.
Djokovic dismissed the second match point as well and went on to win. He then battered Nadal in a brutal four-set final to win his third major of the year. Given that Federer had beaten Djokovic in the semis at the French Open, which halted Djokovic's bid to establish a new consecutive wins record, it's tantalizing to wonder how differently we'd view this year -- and the fortunes and powers of the three top players -- had Federer converted one of those two match points.
But give Djokovic all the credit in the world. Making that service return winner was a career moment, and it personified the mandate embraced by almost all champions: When the chips are down, go big -- or go home.
5. Rafael Nadal d. Andy Roddick, U.S. Open quarterfinals, 6-2, 6-2, 6-3.
You have to go all the way back to 2008 to find a more lopsided score in the history between these two players (Nadal leads the head-to-head, 7-3), but that's not the main reason this was such a discouraging match for U.S. tennis fans.
That Roddick was unable to put up more resistance on what is basically his home court, and the one on which he won his long Grand Slam title, could be taken as an omen that Roddick, 29, just doesn't have enough left in the tank to keep his familiar place in the top 10. And that's bad news for U.S. tennis, despite the way Mardy Fish recently has picked up some of the slack.
4. Samantha Stosur d. Li Na, round robin of WTA Championships, 6-1, 6-0.
Sure it's great that Asia finally has a Grand Slam champ in Li, who not only won the French Open but came awfully close to winning the first major of the year as well. And though we know Li tends to have a major letdown after big tournaments, she was in with a shot to qualify for the knockout semifinals of the prestigious year-end championships when she met Stosur in the third round of the round robin. That Li caved so thoroughly at the last event of the year, on an indoor hard surface that suits her game, and got just one measly game off Stosur was a real downer.
3. Juan Martin del Potro d. Novak Djokovic, Davis Cup semifinals, 7-6, 3-0 ret.
This was the beginning of the end of one of the great stories in all of the Open era. It began with Djokovic's early-season winning streak, continued with his mastery of Nadal on the Spanish then-No. 1's beloved clay and hit a peak at the U.S. Open, where new No. 1 Djokovic won his third major of the year and positioned himself to threaten John McEnroe's record winning percentage (.965 on an 82-3 mark in 1984).
But just a week after the Open, Djokovic had to quit (lower-back injury), and defending champ Serbia was knocked out of the Davis Cup by del Potro and his Argentine teammates. Djokovic was not the same for the remainder of the year and ended up a still brilliant but woozy 70-6 on the year.
2. Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer, Miami Masters semifinal, 6-3, 6-2.
It was early in the year, and while Djokovic had won the Australian Open and the Indian Wells Masters, the Federer-Nadal rivalry was still the major story in men's tennis. Thus it was that much more surprising when, in an electric atmosphere on a sultry night in Miami, the fans packed into the stadium at Crandon Park got to witness nothing more exciting than a mercy killing. Federer simply didn't have his A-game. Or his B-game. Or his C-game. He had nothing.
However, it would be remiss of me not to mention that Federer basically turned the tables on Nadal some seven months later, when he crushed Nadal at the ATP World Tour Finals, 6-3, 6-0. That's how it is with these two guys.
1. Sam Stosur d. Serena Williams, U.S. Open final, 6-2, 6-3
Although this is a legitimate highlight of the year, not to mention a career high point for first-time Grand Slam champion Stosur, that controversy over the chair umpire's decision to punish Williams for screaming during a point, and Williams' subsequent meltdown, dominated the news and ruined what ought to have been a celebration of the surprising skill and will that Stosur brought to the match.
It was a jarring, discordant way to end the WTA Grand Slam year. The prohibitive and popular favorite Williams played mediocre tennis, got ugly and crashed out and thus failed to win a Grand Slam title for the first time in five years. It left a bad taste in the mouth of everyone but Stosur, who was content to know that when it really counted, she finally delivered against the formidable Serena.
AP Photo/Andy WongIt was certainly a disappointing 2011 for Rafael Nadal.Last year at this time -- meaning Davis Cup finals time -- Novak Djokovic was still one small step away from parity with No. 1 Rafael Nadal and No. 2 Roger Federer. By the end of the weekend, during which Djokovic led suddenly tennis-mad Serbia to its first Davis Cup championship, he had quietly and perhaps subconsciously gained that final inch of ground.
The pride and satisfaction Djokovic took from the Davis Cup effort set him up for 2011 (which began barely a month after that battle in Belgrade); he's said so himself.
Ironically, Rafael Nadal may be in a somewhat similar situation this week in Seville, Spain, where he leads the Spanish against Juan Martin del Potro, David Nalbandian, and the rest of the crew representing Argentina, the best nation never to have won the Cup.
OK, the history and stakes here are different for Nadal. There's nothing like the enthusiasm of an emerging, recently-troubled nation like Serbia, which has suddenly become a force in international tennis. Serbia needed an international hero, and it found one in sports. Think about it -- what other Serb has brought as much positive attention to his or her nation as Djokovic?
By comparison, the promise of a strong Davis Cup conclusion for Nadal is microcosmic; more personal and strictly career-related. Rafa has had a rough year, which is a strange thing to say about a guy who was in three Grand Slam finals and won one (the French Open).
But the bottom line is that Rafa embarked on 2011 as the clear and dominant No. 1 after a year in which he bagged three majors. A year ago, all of us were wondering if Nadal, not Federer, might emerge as that mythic GOAT (Greatest of All Time). Another three Slam wins in 2011 would have given him a dozen majors, just four behind Federer -- at age 25. Hail, he could get those next four without leaving Paris.
But the emergence of Djokovic absolutely undercut Nadal. Not only did Djokovic, not Nadal, win three majors, but also by mid-year Djokovic had, improbably, snatched away the No. 1 ranking. Worse yet for Nadal, Djokovic hog-tied him on the Spanish icon's beloved red clay, the surface on which many fans, pundits and even Nadal's peers considered him invincible.
By the end of the ATP year, Djokovic was a combined 10-1 against Nadal and Federer -- an outlandish achievement. And that 6-0 edge over Nadal included Djokovic triumphs in two Grand Slam finals (Wimbledon and the U.S. Open). Do not for a moment think this did not hurt Nadal. He even admitted it in a number of touchingly humble press conferences. It might have been a factor in some of his darker ones, in which he complained about the length of the season, his fitness, the daily grind and travel of the touring life.
At times during the second half of this year, Nadal seemed disillusioned and fed up. And after revealing his true feelings, he sometimes backed away from them, claiming they were taken out of context. I'm sure they were ... to some extent. But they hinted at trouble in the paradise Nadal had finally entered after his long hunt for the No. 1 ranking held so long by Federer.
Nadal won't be able to do a full-on reset this weekend, no matter what happens in Seville. But Spain has been the outstanding Davis Cup nation for a decade now, and another win will give the nation its fifth title in 11 years. That's a dynasty, and given Nadal's age and his supporting cast, there's no end in sight. Nadal's record is 20-5, but an outstanding 18-1 in singles, and that alternating host rule means that not all those wins came on red clay.
Whatever else happens in Nadal's career, his countrymen will always love him for his Davis Cup exploits, because in Spain the fans care about such things. In fact, they care about such things almost everywhere else in the world but here in the U.S.
Another Davis Cup win won't salvage Nadal's 2011, but, as they say, it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And it may help Nadal regroup for 2012, which is coming up on us mighty fast.
A: It just doesn't have the same ring. We have moved on. Or
B: It feels just like old times.
Option A is the more obvious reaction, given the way Novak Djokovic (who heads up the seemingly weaker Group A) has relegated everyone else to "supporting cast" status through the bulk of the season. It's no secret that both Federer and Nadal have dented reputations because of Djokovic's accomplishments this year.
Sure, Federer won the tournament in Basel, Switzerland, and the Paris Indoors just last week, and he brings a 12-match winning streak to the grand finale in London. But he didn't have to face either Nadal or Djokovic at those events, and he seemed only to decline through the Grand Slam season from his peak in early June, when he halted Djokovic's 43-match win streak in the semifinals of the French Open.
At Wimbledon, Federer blew a two-set lead over Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who roared back to win their quarterfinal. And in the U.S. Open semifinals, Federer had two match points on Djokovic but couldn't close the deal. The Swiss, now No. 4 behind Andy Murray, went 10 months without winning a tournament before he popped back to life in Basel. Coming up big in the fall is OK for guys like Murray or Tomas Berdych, but this is Federer we're talking about here.
But at least Federer has made a late-season push. The same cannot be said for Nadal, who seems a more damaged champion -- thanks mainly to the way Djokovic has manhandled him (he's a staggering 6-0 against Nadal this year, and two of those matches were played on clay -- Nadal's battlefield of choice). Unlike his pal and rival Federer, Nadal did not pull out of the Asian fall events. He played them with so-so results, losing to Murray in Tokyo and Florian Mayer at the Shanghai Masters.
After that, Nadal pulled out of the European indoor events that end the season, taking a calculated risk. Sure he'll be well-rested for London. But he could also be rusty; he quit on a down note and played no official matches for a solid month.
Also, Nadal has never won the year-end championships, indoors or out, while Federer is the defending champ and a five-time WTF winner. He played Nadal in the final last year and won going away, 6-3, 3-6, 6-1. This could be a blowout and leave Nadal with just one bit of consolation (albeit a big one) for 2011: his triumph at the French Open.
Option B is a slightly more nuanced reaction. Federer and Nadal know that there's much ground to regain with a big win in London, especially if it's over Djokovic. And everyone knows that Djokovic is belly-crawling to the finish line with an injured shoulder and -- perhaps -- the player's equivalent of the food coma that lies in store for all of us in a week.
I'm sure that both of these guys would love to get another crack at Djokovic, who took off almost exactly the same amount of time as Federer after the U.S. Open but has had singularly less impressive results upon his return (loss to Kei Nishikori in the Basel semis and a withdrawal in the quarters in Paris). Should Djokovic prove unable to start (or finish) the event, so much the better. The opportunity is obvious.
It's too late in the year to do anything about Djokovic's No. 1 ranking and clear-cut status as the big dog for 2012. But any match between Federer and Nadal is significant because their rivalry is historic and particularly intriguing because, while Federer is the all-time Grand Slam title champion, Nadal holds a striking 17-8 edge in their head-to-head meetings.
Nadal needs to win this event more than Federer does; it represents the only blank spot on his resume. He also needs the boost of a big win more than his rival. Federer is over 30 and he owns 16 Grand Slam singles titles; at this stage it's all gravy. Nadal is just 25 and on the defensive in a big way for the first time in his career. Nadal is more desperate, but Federer is more dangerous.
Which is why, to me, this feels just like old times. Only better.
So here we are at the end of another year with the ATP playoffs coming up, and guess who everyone is talking about?
Not Novak Djokovic, who's all busted up and on the verge of declaring, "No mas!"
Not Rafael Nadal, who has withdrawn for a few weeks, partially to sulk and partially to prepare for the World Tour Finals.
And not Andy Murray, who has developed the disconcerting habit of playing his best tennis when the fewest people care.
The guy they're talking about at the end of another year is Roger Federer. Sheesh. This guy has more lives than Freddy Krueger. He also has a better record. Although Krueger is ranked no higher than No. 8 (by British television channel Sky2) on an "all-time villains" lists, Federer is the consensus choice as the greatest Grand Slam champion of all time. And he's at that stage in his career where every time he turns around, some record comes crashing down.
A few days ago, he became just the seventh man to record 800 wins on the pro tour. And Sunday, Federer won the Paris Masters to become the first man to have contested in the final of all nine Masters Series events. That's going to be a hard record to top.
With 18 Masters titles (18-12 record in finals), Federer trails Nadal by just one championship. He may end up surpassing his Spanish pal and rival; but in any event, he's already won more of the top-tier sub-Grand Slam events than Andre Agassi (17), Pete Sampras (11) or Djokovic (10).
Technically speaking, Federer's win in Paris was an upset because Djokovic (who withdrew with a sore shoulder after winning two matches) and Murray (who leapfrogged ahead of Federer in the rankings to No. 2 with his excellent play this fall) were seeded ahead of him. But no one in his right mind was, or ought to be, surprised by Federer's resurgence. Greatness doesn't evaporate like the morning dew; it just finds expression less and less predictably as the years go on.
"I'm just really ecstatic to have played so well this week from start to finish," Federer told the press after he won in Paris. "Basically, from the first ball I struck against [Adrian] Mannarino all the way until the very end here, I couldn't be more happy."
We could go on and on about Federer's various accomplishments -- and don't forget that this was, at long last, his first win at this event in nine tries. But the "first" that may be most relevant in the immediate future is this was Federer's first tournament win as a 30-year-old. All right, it's not a stat destined to appear in boldface print in the record books, but don't discount the effect it may have on Federer, and his rivals.
Pete Sampras told me some time ago the hardest thing about that long, dry spell before he won his final Grand Slam at age 31 (2002 U.S. Open, the last regular pro tournament he would ever play) was keeping the faith and shutting out the critics who kept asking if he was finished or declaring he was through as a serious contender.
Federer has also started to hear a little bit of that in recent months. After all, he went 10 months without a tournament win of any kind after he started his year with a win in Doha and got real creative in the ways he flamed out at Grand Slam events (Federer stood by as Tsonga came back from two sets down to win their quarterfinal battle at Wimbledon, and Djokovic swept aside two match points to prevail in their U.S. Open semifinal clash).
But reports of Federer's demise were clearly exaggerated. He's going into the London ATP World Tour Finals with a nifty 12-match winning streak, a great deal of saved capital (he's the five-time champ, including a title there last season) and, perhaps most important, indisputable proof that 30 is just a number.
No one is safe. Not Rafa, not Andy, not Novak, not even Freddy, should he be stupid enough to swap those razor claws for a racket.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Peter Bodo
Peter Bodo has been covering tennis for more than 30 years, most of them with TENNIS.com and TENNIS Magazine, where he is a senior editor and author of the popular blog, Peter Bodo's TennisWorld. A two-time WTA writer of the year, Bodo has also written numerous books, including "Tennis For Dummies" with U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe.