Shorn of the pressure that weighs quite heavily on his shoulder these days, Federer stepped it up against Roddick today. The forehand was fit and firing and the backhand was its versatile self. With 83% of his first serves falling in, they were hardly needed during his service games. But with his opponent not serving "from a tree" during this match, they took over most of the return games he played. As always, they served as very effective point ending weapons from the baseline, but surprisingly, also as genuine approach shots to abet his frequent forays to the net. Once there, he pulled off most of the volleys he had to make with a few of them quite spectacular. On a couple of instances, with Roddick coming in by chipping low, he positioned himself mid-court and delightfully slanted it past the outstretched racket of Andy. That was court craft at its very best.
Attacking the net has not been a part of Federer's gameplan for a long time now. Whether it was the case today because it was an inconsequential match, or whether it forebodes what is to come against Nadal, we will soon find out. He certainly cannot have the same success rate against Nadal. Today, even on those occasions that Roddick had a decent look at a passing shot, he mostly failed. It was apparent that his powerful topspins did not present much of a problem to Federer's volleys. Roddick needed to pass Federer with guile and precision rather than with power, but based on what I saw today, and also recollecting from memory, he does not seem to have that ability.
Nadal though, will be a totally different proposition. First, he will have that extra bit of time to hit his passes, and then, he can hit a loaded, killer angle pass from anywhere on court. Federer knows that very well and will adjust accordingly. But it was good to see him exhibit some rock solid volleying in match conditions. In spite of the aforementioned hazards, it should stand him in good stead for the semifinals.
Speaking of which, it is too bad that it is going to be a 3 set affair, for a Nadal - Federer matchup deserves more, but then, whoever wins will most likely be playing a best of 5 sets match with a right handed version of Nadal the very next day. So, this seems fair.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
who will be 'The Master of the Universe'?
Even after Nalbandian disposed Federer for the second time in 10 days, I was backing Gasquet/Murray to clinch the final spot at the year end Masters.
Until this year, I don't remember being caught up in the race for a place at the Masters. But this time, with talents like Berdych, Gasquet, Murray and even Baghdatis in the reckoning, along with the consistent but unexceptional Robredo and Moya, the race got interesting going into Paris.
The draw out there was top heavy with the Masters' contenders. If their fire was doused by Federer and Djokovic as expected, the race wouldn't have picked up steam. But the magician Santoro dismantled Djoko, while Nalbandian tied up his HtoH record with Federer. This pretty much cleared the way for the contenders to secure a place with victory rather than by default. Murray and Gasquet made good progress to setup a shootout amongst themselves. Baghdatis kept the other half interesting. It was all building up nicely.
Nalbandian's surge had come too late this year and as a result, he was not in control of his destiny. Soon enough, other results put paid to his hopes for a place at the Masters. Gasquet clinching a thriller against Murray put him on pole position, and his place was cemented when Baghdatis lost out to Nadal.
At that point, I was extremely happy with the result and was backing Gasquet to go to Shanghai in fine style by clinching the the title of Paris. Much to my disappointment, Nalbandian brushed past him in straight sets. I missed the action, but reports indicate that it was a lopsided match. To confirm his prime form Nalbandian thumped Nadal in the final.
There can't be any complaints with the points race since it rewards consistency through the year, while making reservations for the brilliance of the Slam winners of that year who might have missed out for whatever reason. But its just that the in the light of the events from the last 3 weeks, the Masters without Nalbandian seems like devaluation of quality from a tournament that is meant to be all about quality. I wonder if his shadow will hang over the tournament. Maybe not. Particularly if the matches are exciting. But if Federer picks up the trophy there, questions, will be asked about Nalbandian's absence.
Federer faces some tough questions when he loses. Usually, he gives them a fair weighting and answers thoughtfully. He also gets asked about controversial topics within the sport. And he is not one that is shy to offer an opinion. Quite often, it is hard hitting in his own way (while the whole world seemed to be taken up by Djoko's antics at the US Open, check out what Federer had to say about the same). The reason he hasn't courted too much controversy is because of his stature in the game and the respect and admiration that he elicits even from the ones he slays regularly on court. So, if he wins and is asked about Nalbandian's absence, Federer might even answer that he would have preferred to have defeated him to win the title.
Instead of all that, it would just be great for the fans if one from Messrs 3 to 8 pulled out for a reason that I could not care about any less. Due apologies to the player if and when such an event happens, but if Nalbandian plays, Federer faces a considerable challenge from three players - Nadal, Djokovic, Nalbandian, and it is a long time since anything like that happened in the world of tennis. That ought to make it a fitting finale to another great year.
Update: Who needs Nalby? We've got Gonzo!
Until this year, I don't remember being caught up in the race for a place at the Masters. But this time, with talents like Berdych, Gasquet, Murray and even Baghdatis in the reckoning, along with the consistent but unexceptional Robredo and Moya, the race got interesting going into Paris.
The draw out there was top heavy with the Masters' contenders. If their fire was doused by Federer and Djokovic as expected, the race wouldn't have picked up steam. But the magician Santoro dismantled Djoko, while Nalbandian tied up his HtoH record with Federer. This pretty much cleared the way for the contenders to secure a place with victory rather than by default. Murray and Gasquet made good progress to setup a shootout amongst themselves. Baghdatis kept the other half interesting. It was all building up nicely.
Nalbandian's surge had come too late this year and as a result, he was not in control of his destiny. Soon enough, other results put paid to his hopes for a place at the Masters. Gasquet clinching a thriller against Murray put him on pole position, and his place was cemented when Baghdatis lost out to Nadal.
At that point, I was extremely happy with the result and was backing Gasquet to go to Shanghai in fine style by clinching the the title of Paris. Much to my disappointment, Nalbandian brushed past him in straight sets. I missed the action, but reports indicate that it was a lopsided match. To confirm his prime form Nalbandian thumped Nadal in the final.
There can't be any complaints with the points race since it rewards consistency through the year, while making reservations for the brilliance of the Slam winners of that year who might have missed out for whatever reason. But its just that the in the light of the events from the last 3 weeks, the Masters without Nalbandian seems like devaluation of quality from a tournament that is meant to be all about quality. I wonder if his shadow will hang over the tournament. Maybe not. Particularly if the matches are exciting. But if Federer picks up the trophy there, questions, will be asked about Nalbandian's absence.
Federer faces some tough questions when he loses. Usually, he gives them a fair weighting and answers thoughtfully. He also gets asked about controversial topics within the sport. And he is not one that is shy to offer an opinion. Quite often, it is hard hitting in his own way (while the whole world seemed to be taken up by Djoko's antics at the US Open, check out what Federer had to say about the same). The reason he hasn't courted too much controversy is because of his stature in the game and the respect and admiration that he elicits even from the ones he slays regularly on court. So, if he wins and is asked about Nalbandian's absence, Federer might even answer that he would have preferred to have defeated him to win the title.
Instead of all that, it would just be great for the fans if one from Messrs 3 to 8 pulled out for a reason that I could not care about any less. Due apologies to the player if and when such an event happens, but if Nalbandian plays, Federer faces a considerable challenge from three players - Nadal, Djokovic, Nalbandian, and it is a long time since anything like that happened in the world of tennis. That ought to make it a fitting finale to another great year.
Update: Who needs Nalby? We've got Gonzo!
Daily activities: sleep, work, eat and watch Chennai 600028
They say that the best things in life come unannounced. Partly, this is due the lack of expectation associated with it for there can't be much expected out of something that one doesn't even expect, right? And as a result of a basic human nature that always cherishes an unexpected bonus more than an expected one, the good seems even better in those cases.
In some ways this can skew an objective analysis of whatever it is that happened, but then, who are we kidding? What is objective analysis? It is always one man's viewpoint about something. Always colored. Anyway, critical analysis of this concept is not the idea here. It doesn't matter either, for the only thing that matters is the amount of joy that one one can derive from the specific event. The aforesaid is just meant to reiterate a truism of our lives.
On a regular basis, this truism is perceptible in the activity of movie watching. Watching one after reading/listening to the ranting and raving of a critic/friend almost always has disastrous consequences. It is mighty hard for any movie, even a good one, to live up to sky high expectations. As a result, it might leave the audience feeling flat, while even an average movie can seem very enjoyable simply due to the lack of expectation. It is also a well known fact that sequels suffer at the box office due to excessive expectation from the audience (it is another story that these movies thrive on the very same expectation and manage to rake up the box-office collections during the first weekend itself).
On this note, Chennai 600028 came quite unannounced into my life. I was in India, watching some television, when I chanced upon the bit from the movie, where Gopi is forced to give up his beloved bat to a bunch of schoolboys. People tell me that the background score is from Naayakan, while I firmly maintain that it is from Aboorva Sagodarargal. Whatever it is, that, and the sight of Gopi inconsolably sobbing, got me roaring in laughter. Since the movie was ready to be viewed at home, I promptly did.
To reiterate, the expectation versus quality debate is not what I am going to indulge in, here. Instead, "objectively" looking at it, I believe that the movie is genuine in quality and deserves all the praise that has come its way. A movie with cricket at its heart is a definite variant to the ones churned out by our cine industry. However, themes can do only so much. In fact, they raise expectation. The vital ingredients of a movie needs to be in place for it to be good.
The cast for Chennai 600028 is fresh faced. So is the director, I hear. This movie follows a group of boys belonging to the middle class strata of the Tamil society, through a year of cricket, friendship, romance and the usual. Having decided to focus on their everyday lives, it was important for the acts to be realistic but at the same time interesting. This is a pretty hard challenge to overcome, and not too many films manage to do so. Notably, Shankar's Boys miserably failed in this regard, with its very many over the top excesses and unrealistic scenarios. This one though, has only a few excesses, which are actually injected quite well into the screenplay.
For the portrayal of an everyday situation to work, the script and the screenplay are vital ingredients. The cast too has to do the needful. At their various gatherings in the movie, the primary subjects do a great job of conveying reality to the audience. Further, the ones in the background pleasantly surprised me by delivering some memorable lines and reactions. This appears to have been really well thought out. And the way it has been done is by establishing an identity for each one of the boys. They are not there just to make up the numbers.
The movie centers around Raghu, Arvind, Karthik and Palani. Seenu gets a fair bit of air time. But the others too have their moments. Notable acts of the 'others' include Ezhumalai's belated career related realization, Gopi's affair with his bat and Imran's propensity to initiate fights, which is stated right at the beginning and depicted throughout. Just thinking of those incidents makes me laugh now.
It might be because they are fresh faced, thus devoid of any baggage from the past, or because they are just so darn good, but the cast's on screen chemistry makes the acts of camaraderie, bantering and fist fights really work. Arvind regaling his mates with details of his initial meeting and initial 'contact' with his love interest, Shwetha, are two of my twenty odd favorite scenes from the movie.
The cricket action sequences and the humor are two of the obvious positives. Unlike most Tamil movies, the humor is interwoven with the main screenplay. This lends a nice balance to the various events in the the movie. The minor plots pervading the movie, the language, the gestures, the dialogues and the timely digs, cohesively establish the movie's authentic portrayal. This was the key.
As should be obvious to anyone who has viewed this movie already, the mood is fairly light through the entire duration. Amidst this scenario, the two acts featuring the angry and the apologetic confrontations between Palani and Karthick stand out for the way they have been depicted. Instead of indulging in excessive melodrama that is typical for a tamil movie, the two protagonists let it all out in a very honest manner, with the rest of the group getting into the act with timely actions and comments. In the end, their reconciliation is handled in keeping with the theme of the movie. Well done!
Notice the sheer joy in the above picture? What else but cricket can make a bunch of guys revel in this manner? Must have been an India - Pakistan encounter....
The year was 2004 and India was touring Pakistan for the first time in 15 years. This was the first contest between the two sides since the Kargil war. It is always a great occassion when there is excitement and tension in the air. So it was then. And almost as if scripted, the ODI series went down to the fifth game with the score tied 2-2. Thanks to Laxman, we scored 293, thus setting Pak a fairly difficult chase under the lights. It is worth noting though, that India had chased down the very same target in the previous match at the very same venue. This game though, we had them in early trouble at 58/4. They were behind on the run rate too.
We were around 25 of us, graduate students at the University of Cincinnati., gathered in our living room, way past midnight, eyes glued to the TV. We knew that India was in the driver's seat, but at that point, no one felt the release of tension as yet. All of us bore the scars inflicted by various Inzi and Razzaq and Moin Khan led match winning recovery acts. Here, Inzi was in the center with Razzaq and Moin still to come. So, we just stayed put and kept silent.
Murali Kartik, the man of the moment now, was in the thick of action then. He was bowling a good spell, giving the ball a fair bit of air and gaining some turn as a result. This though made him susceptible to Inzi jumping out of the crease and planting one over the boundary. To be fair, not too many spinners aren't susceptible to that. Anyway, there he was, bowling to Inzi, who had already scored a few boundaries, and worse, looked like he was having a hit in the nets while doing so. To one Kartik delivery, Inzi stepped out and went hard at it.
Eyes strained to follow the arc of the ball. Television cameras always follow the ball's trajectory, but they do not offer the viewer any insight into its position with respect to the playing field (due to camera position and the altitude of the traveling ball). What this does, is to leave the viewer in the dark about the destination of the ball. One can see the ball go high up into the air, seemingly traveling for eternity and then coming down into the hands of a fielder who is well inside the boundary line. Perspective of distance traveled is lost amidst the blue background of the sky.
So, as the ball was flying towards the boundary, we did not know what the result would be. Surely, it did not seem like he hit it perfectly, but this was Inzi, and it seemed like the ball might have the legs to fly over the boundary. Just before it almost did, Sachin Tendulkar, running along the boundary rope, grabbed it at full stretch and set off in celebration towards the rest.
The match wasn't won. We weren't even sure if Sachin had stepped on the boundary line during this piece of action. But we just couldn't hold it anymore. Each one erupted with very original convulsions of arm, leg and body. The roar of relief and joy was quite uniform though. I just wish that someone had taken a picture of us right then. It would have had striking similarities to the one above.
In some ways this can skew an objective analysis of whatever it is that happened, but then, who are we kidding? What is objective analysis? It is always one man's viewpoint about something. Always colored. Anyway, critical analysis of this concept is not the idea here. It doesn't matter either, for the only thing that matters is the amount of joy that one one can derive from the specific event. The aforesaid is just meant to reiterate a truism of our lives.
On a regular basis, this truism is perceptible in the activity of movie watching. Watching one after reading/listening to the ranting and raving of a critic/friend almost always has disastrous consequences. It is mighty hard for any movie, even a good one, to live up to sky high expectations. As a result, it might leave the audience feeling flat, while even an average movie can seem very enjoyable simply due to the lack of expectation. It is also a well known fact that sequels suffer at the box office due to excessive expectation from the audience (it is another story that these movies thrive on the very same expectation and manage to rake up the box-office collections during the first weekend itself).
On this note, Chennai 600028 came quite unannounced into my life. I was in India, watching some television, when I chanced upon the bit from the movie, where Gopi is forced to give up his beloved bat to a bunch of schoolboys. People tell me that the background score is from Naayakan, while I firmly maintain that it is from Aboorva Sagodarargal. Whatever it is, that, and the sight of Gopi inconsolably sobbing, got me roaring in laughter. Since the movie was ready to be viewed at home, I promptly did.
To reiterate, the expectation versus quality debate is not what I am going to indulge in, here. Instead, "objectively" looking at it, I believe that the movie is genuine in quality and deserves all the praise that has come its way. A movie with cricket at its heart is a definite variant to the ones churned out by our cine industry. However, themes can do only so much. In fact, they raise expectation. The vital ingredients of a movie needs to be in place for it to be good.
The cast for Chennai 600028 is fresh faced. So is the director, I hear. This movie follows a group of boys belonging to the middle class strata of the Tamil society, through a year of cricket, friendship, romance and the usual. Having decided to focus on their everyday lives, it was important for the acts to be realistic but at the same time interesting. This is a pretty hard challenge to overcome, and not too many films manage to do so. Notably, Shankar's Boys miserably failed in this regard, with its very many over the top excesses and unrealistic scenarios. This one though, has only a few excesses, which are actually injected quite well into the screenplay.
For the portrayal of an everyday situation to work, the script and the screenplay are vital ingredients. The cast too has to do the needful. At their various gatherings in the movie, the primary subjects do a great job of conveying reality to the audience. Further, the ones in the background pleasantly surprised me by delivering some memorable lines and reactions. This appears to have been really well thought out. And the way it has been done is by establishing an identity for each one of the boys. They are not there just to make up the numbers.
The movie centers around Raghu, Arvind, Karthik and Palani. Seenu gets a fair bit of air time. But the others too have their moments. Notable acts of the 'others' include Ezhumalai's belated career related realization, Gopi's affair with his bat and Imran's propensity to initiate fights, which is stated right at the beginning and depicted throughout. Just thinking of those incidents makes me laugh now.
It might be because they are fresh faced, thus devoid of any baggage from the past, or because they are just so darn good, but the cast's on screen chemistry makes the acts of camaraderie, bantering and fist fights really work. Arvind regaling his mates with details of his initial meeting and initial 'contact' with his love interest, Shwetha, are two of my twenty odd favorite scenes from the movie.
The cricket action sequences and the humor are two of the obvious positives. Unlike most Tamil movies, the humor is interwoven with the main screenplay. This lends a nice balance to the various events in the the movie. The minor plots pervading the movie, the language, the gestures, the dialogues and the timely digs, cohesively establish the movie's authentic portrayal. This was the key.
As should be obvious to anyone who has viewed this movie already, the mood is fairly light through the entire duration. Amidst this scenario, the two acts featuring the angry and the apologetic confrontations between Palani and Karthick stand out for the way they have been depicted. Instead of indulging in excessive melodrama that is typical for a tamil movie, the two protagonists let it all out in a very honest manner, with the rest of the group getting into the act with timely actions and comments. In the end, their reconciliation is handled in keeping with the theme of the movie. Well done!
Notice the sheer joy in the above picture? What else but cricket can make a bunch of guys revel in this manner? Must have been an India - Pakistan encounter....
The year was 2004 and India was touring Pakistan for the first time in 15 years. This was the first contest between the two sides since the Kargil war. It is always a great occassion when there is excitement and tension in the air. So it was then. And almost as if scripted, the ODI series went down to the fifth game with the score tied 2-2. Thanks to Laxman, we scored 293, thus setting Pak a fairly difficult chase under the lights. It is worth noting though, that India had chased down the very same target in the previous match at the very same venue. This game though, we had them in early trouble at 58/4. They were behind on the run rate too.
We were around 25 of us, graduate students at the University of Cincinnati., gathered in our living room, way past midnight, eyes glued to the TV. We knew that India was in the driver's seat, but at that point, no one felt the release of tension as yet. All of us bore the scars inflicted by various Inzi and Razzaq and Moin Khan led match winning recovery acts. Here, Inzi was in the center with Razzaq and Moin still to come. So, we just stayed put and kept silent.
Murali Kartik, the man of the moment now, was in the thick of action then. He was bowling a good spell, giving the ball a fair bit of air and gaining some turn as a result. This though made him susceptible to Inzi jumping out of the crease and planting one over the boundary. To be fair, not too many spinners aren't susceptible to that. Anyway, there he was, bowling to Inzi, who had already scored a few boundaries, and worse, looked like he was having a hit in the nets while doing so. To one Kartik delivery, Inzi stepped out and went hard at it.
Eyes strained to follow the arc of the ball. Television cameras always follow the ball's trajectory, but they do not offer the viewer any insight into its position with respect to the playing field (due to camera position and the altitude of the traveling ball). What this does, is to leave the viewer in the dark about the destination of the ball. One can see the ball go high up into the air, seemingly traveling for eternity and then coming down into the hands of a fielder who is well inside the boundary line. Perspective of distance traveled is lost amidst the blue background of the sky.
So, as the ball was flying towards the boundary, we did not know what the result would be. Surely, it did not seem like he hit it perfectly, but this was Inzi, and it seemed like the ball might have the legs to fly over the boundary. Just before it almost did, Sachin Tendulkar, running along the boundary rope, grabbed it at full stretch and set off in celebration towards the rest.
The match wasn't won. We weren't even sure if Sachin had stepped on the boundary line during this piece of action. But we just couldn't hold it anymore. Each one erupted with very original convulsions of arm, leg and body. The roar of relief and joy was quite uniform though. I just wish that someone had taken a picture of us right then. It would have had striking similarities to the one above.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Hopefully, it can be resolved
I watched most of Federer's consecutive defeats to Canas earlier this year, all of his loss to Nadal at Roland Garros and some of the action from his loss to Djokovic at Montreal. I also saw him struggle through the Wimbledon final, where he pretty much served his way out of trouble and then played vintage tennis for the final four games. Of course, besides these, I watched most of his Grand Slam matches (thus, victories) and some of the ones he played at the Masters series. Now, 10 or so days after his loss to Nalbandian at Madrid, which I slept through, I am watching the two go head to head in Paris. Nalby is up a double break in the first set.
Nalbandian was a revelation at Wimbledon'02 where he reached the finals from nowhere. Hewitt rolled over him in the championship match, but Nalby's clean hitting off both flanks made people take notice of his talent. Further, it was presumed that he had the game to be a contender on all surfaces, unlike most of his countrymen. Over the next couple of years, he rose to the top echelons of the sport and was a fairly consistent presence at the second week of a Slam.
During this period, with enormous expectation, due to his potential and his impressive record against Federer, I've watched a few of their matches (Not the Masters'05 though), where unfailingly, he produced uninspiring tennis. So much so, that I was inclined to switch channels mid-match. When Nalby plays badly it is so easy for the viewer to get disillusioned since his body language exudes disinterest. Having developed an apathy, I did not care for his semifinal runs at the Australian Open'06 and French Open'06. Soon after, his results nosedived. He fell out of the top 10. This year, he hardly created a ripple. Until Madrid.
Delivering a career verdict with a happy ending - top talent, shone early, struggled for a few years with a few highlights and playing inch perfect tennis now - would be easy, but unfair, since I have hardly followed his career with interest.
Now though, I am watching him, and I can say with assurance that he is hitting the ball as cleanly as anyone, including Federer, can. This is not meant to indicate that he is playing at the level of vintage Federer, for one can lay claim to that only if one can invent new angles for strokeplay every alternate point. But he is probably playing as well as anyone else can play this game. He is yanking Federer around the court and dominating him with his baseline hitting.
Update: Federer down a set and a break. Nalbandian serving for the match.
Like I said, I witnessed most of Federer's losses this year, which isn't a lot anyway. I've also watched his victories. Through all of them, it is noticeable that his forehand topspin is misfiring. Again, I say this with assurance and (I believe) not as a knee jerk reaction.
With everything else in place, Federer can win Slams with a misfiring forehand. That is precisely what he has done. Lest anyone needs reminding, he won 3 Slams this year. But it is when he has his forehand firing that he can dish out those bagel sets at will. On those instances, his opponents haven't a chance. They don't have a place to go to, on court.
I don't have the stats with me, but I do not remember any bagel sets this year. No one needs to remind me of the Federer - Roddick game at the Aus Open. He played that match as well as tennis could be played. But has he bageled anyone this year? He probably did, but I don't remember any. Which means that there weren't too many. This is in complete contrast to his results over the last three years. My sincere apologies Sir Federer, but there are just too many forehands of yours that go long/wide or are completely mis-hit during prolonged rallying. There is just no place for that in your game.
I feel guilty saying this, for this is like asking Sampras to work on his serve, but if Federer intends to fulfill his stated ambition of staying on top when the 2012 London Olympics come up, he better work on his topspin forehand.
Update: Nalbandian wins 6-4 7-6(3)!
Nalbandian was a revelation at Wimbledon'02 where he reached the finals from nowhere. Hewitt rolled over him in the championship match, but Nalby's clean hitting off both flanks made people take notice of his talent. Further, it was presumed that he had the game to be a contender on all surfaces, unlike most of his countrymen. Over the next couple of years, he rose to the top echelons of the sport and was a fairly consistent presence at the second week of a Slam.
During this period, with enormous expectation, due to his potential and his impressive record against Federer, I've watched a few of their matches (Not the Masters'05 though), where unfailingly, he produced uninspiring tennis. So much so, that I was inclined to switch channels mid-match. When Nalby plays badly it is so easy for the viewer to get disillusioned since his body language exudes disinterest. Having developed an apathy, I did not care for his semifinal runs at the Australian Open'06 and French Open'06. Soon after, his results nosedived. He fell out of the top 10. This year, he hardly created a ripple. Until Madrid.
Delivering a career verdict with a happy ending - top talent, shone early, struggled for a few years with a few highlights and playing inch perfect tennis now - would be easy, but unfair, since I have hardly followed his career with interest.
Now though, I am watching him, and I can say with assurance that he is hitting the ball as cleanly as anyone, including Federer, can. This is not meant to indicate that he is playing at the level of vintage Federer, for one can lay claim to that only if one can invent new angles for strokeplay every alternate point. But he is probably playing as well as anyone else can play this game. He is yanking Federer around the court and dominating him with his baseline hitting.
Update: Federer down a set and a break. Nalbandian serving for the match.
Like I said, I witnessed most of Federer's losses this year, which isn't a lot anyway. I've also watched his victories. Through all of them, it is noticeable that his forehand topspin is misfiring. Again, I say this with assurance and (I believe) not as a knee jerk reaction.
With everything else in place, Federer can win Slams with a misfiring forehand. That is precisely what he has done. Lest anyone needs reminding, he won 3 Slams this year. But it is when he has his forehand firing that he can dish out those bagel sets at will. On those instances, his opponents haven't a chance. They don't have a place to go to, on court.
I don't have the stats with me, but I do not remember any bagel sets this year. No one needs to remind me of the Federer - Roddick game at the Aus Open. He played that match as well as tennis could be played. But has he bageled anyone this year? He probably did, but I don't remember any. Which means that there weren't too many. This is in complete contrast to his results over the last three years. My sincere apologies Sir Federer, but there are just too many forehands of yours that go long/wide or are completely mis-hit during prolonged rallying. There is just no place for that in your game.
I feel guilty saying this, for this is like asking Sampras to work on his serve, but if Federer intends to fulfill his stated ambition of staying on top when the 2012 London Olympics come up, he better work on his topspin forehand.
Update: Nalbandian wins 6-4 7-6(3)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)