Time-out for Tennis -- Another Federer-Nadal Gem

For me, a lifelong sports fan, it is a unique joy to watch Roger Federer play tennis. He is so good, commanding and versatile that, often, he can defeat most of his opponents when one part of his game is "off."

Except when he plays against Rafael Nadal, his nemesis.

Nadal, at the moment, appears to have Federer's number - both physically, on the court, and, psychologically. Of course, Nadal has strengthened and perfected his game at such a frightening speed that he is now the top-ranked player in the world at 22. Yet, still, even with Nadal playing more consistently in the past year, the two stars seem close enough in talent to create suspense and uncertainty any time they meet.

So, if that's true, why has Nadal beaten Federer in five of the seven times they've met in Grand Slam events - and, 13 of their 19 total matches? Why did Nadal win yesterday's 2009 Australian Open finals - even though, coming in - Federer was playing very well and Nadal had endured an exhausting, five-set semi-final? And, why did Federer, after appearing to have "momentum" at the end of the fourth set, seem to "lose it" and play worse in the fifth set? This intrigues me and I can only hope they keep meeting in tournament finals so I can analyze it more

Here are my "ten points" on why yesterday's final turned out as it did:

1) Federer's first serve - in a baffling, extraordinary twist - was really bad for much of the match. He rarely got it in. As a result, he rarely was in his normal, powerful "flow" when he hits winners off his great serve. Instead, Nadal often made Federer work hard just to win many of his service games -- a truly unusual and damaging aspect of the match.

2) Nadal had a great game plan - to hit it virtually non-stop to Federer's backhand - keeping Federer from using his strong forehand nearly as much. Sometimes, I think Nadal's success at this simple, precise part of their matchup is why he beats Federer so often. When Federer plays everyone else, he finds a way to run around his backhand a lot more. Nadal is too good with his precise placement to allow Federer to do that.

3) Relatedly, Nadal was able - for much of the match - to run Federer all over the court. He kept Federer on the defensive - often because he gained an edge from belting some of Federer's "average" backhand returns.

4) Federer, in contrast, seemed to have no game plan. Often, he hit his returns too near the center of the court. Often, he was unable to pounce on Nadal's average second serves. If Federer wants to start beating Nadal, it's fairly clear now, that his strategy has not worked. He cannot outrally Nadal - No player can.

5) A part of Federer's strategy, in the future, must be to try to hit more winners. His best moments yesterday came when he went for broke and hit winners. I, for one, think the only way to beat Nadal is to hit many winners - the way Verdasco did vs. Nadal in their great semi-final match. Why does Federer play so cautiously against Nadal? Why does he seem to think he can get away with shots down the middle of the court? It's as if Federer has a bit of "denial" about how good Nadal has become OR that he's trying to prove he can beat Nadal at his (Nadal's) own game.

6) I believe - as others have noted - that Federer has become so accustomed to having an advantage over his opponents - and playing that way - that he is unaccustomed to know how to defeat someone at his same level talentwise. Federer can often dominate with his serve and win matches while outrallying his inferior opponents. Nadal doesn't lose rallies or make unforced errors and Federer, stubbornly, has failed to acknowledge this by significantly changing his strategy. Federer is a terrific "frontrunner," often winning after he gets a lead. He's not used to going toe-to-toe with an opponent like Nadal. But, he HAS to change to beat Nadal - period.

7) Federer, in several parts of the match, seemed to "tighten up," and be "thinking too much" on the court. He seemed to be psyching himself out. This was particularly true in the fifth set, when Federer made a variety of unforced errors and seemed to "hand" the set to Nadal. How could that happen so abruptly? Maybe part it is simply that Federer felt pressure and knew Nadal was unlikekly to make mistakes - so, it was all on him. I think there is more to it. I think that despite the score being even - going into the fifth set - that Federer had become "worn down" by Nadal. He hadn't won any easy points. Nadal kept forcing him to hit backhands - and he couldn't hit his backhand flawlessly for five sets. (I think he was sick of hitting his backhand - That Nadal's relentless barrage of high topspin shots into his backhand had driven him a bit crazy) So, when Federer "lost it," it was partly that he had already been forced to play "uphill" for much of the match --- without his first serve and without his forehand.

8) It's time for Federer to ADJUST - finally to the reality that Nadal, right now, is outplaying him every time - and, is the best in the world. Federer has to try new approaches and take new risks. The most obvious challenge: He has to figure out how he can hit more forehands against Nadal -- Perhaps he has to run around his backhand on Nadal's second serve or go to the net once in a while.

9) Federer reminds me of Pedro Martinez when he was on the Red Sox. When Pedro was just past his prime - but still great - he'd often have to "ad-lib" more on the pitcher's mound. He'd find ways to win when he didn't have all his pitches. He was so good, that, often, he still won his share of important games. However, when Pedro stubbornly refused to adjust -and, for instance, kept trying to get his diminishing fastball by good hitters, he would fail - and act a bit surprised. Federer, like Pedro, must adjust to the new realities of what his nemisis, Nadal, brings - and how to use his skills to win by using a bit more creativity.

10) Nadal has improved his game faster (and at a younger age) than any player I've ever seen. He's transformed his backhand from an average stroke to a lethal weapon. (He flicked incredible backhand winners throughout yesterday's match). If Nadal stays healthy and keeps improving, he may go down as what Federer had hoped to -- the best player in the history of tennis. Indeed, if Federer has been like "Superman," it seems he has met the one opponent who affects him like Kryptonite. Will Superman become "super" again? It's intriguing to wonder.

.

Overlooked in Coverage of Obama Inaugural

Despite media coverage from across the globe, there were a few aspects and details of Barack Obama's Inauguration that were either completely ignored, or, overlooked, when, it seemed to me, they warranted at least a little attention:

For example:

1) Obama went out of his way to signal to the world that, as President, he was starting an era of diplomacy and efforts to build better relations without using military action. In the one specific part of his speech when he could have chosen "tougher" words, Obama, instead, said the following:

"...And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

I just found it striking that Obama spoke of "our spirit" rather than referring to our military superiority, so often cited by past presidents. How often does a President, immediately after referring to terrorism like that, speak only of our (American) spirit - and not our military? It was no accident. Obama, in several instances, stressed our "common humanity" and the US interest in getting along, respecting each other and focusing on the common bonds we have with people across the world.

2) Also, while Obama's brief, powerful message to the Muslim world was noted, I thought it deserved even more attention. He said: "...To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy...." What a beautiful, concise, symbolic signal to send in his very first opportunity to speak to the world as President. He was confronting, realistically, the strain in relations between Muslims and the US that had intensified during the eight years of Bush's foreign policy.

3) Again, while noted, it was really noteworthy that Obama chose to make only one direct reference to his being the first African-American President. He spoke of how the meaning of liberty in the US was "why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath..."
On this of all days, a truly unique moment in history, Obama chose to stick to his theme and approach used throughout his long presidential campaign - of NOT emphasizing or drawing more attention to his race.

4) Television media noted the huge crowd repeatedly, but did not make much of an effort to explain why so many ordinary citizens had chosen to make the long trip to Washington DC. They didn't comment much on what had made Obama such a different candidate and how and why he had touched so many people's lives - not only in the crowd in DC, but, watching around the country. I'd say that one simplistic summation would be that Obama was "getting back" at least some of the good will and positive energy he had "given" to so many people. He is a "different" leader - and, it seems he may be, a "different" President because of some of that "transcendent" leadership ability. He has a bit of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King in him, it seems to me - a power and a gift that goes beyond most presidential candidates we've seen.

5) Obama, within the first hour or two after being sworn in, showed us a glimpse - again - of his capacity for spontaneous leadership and cool when, after joining others in responding to the sudden collapse of US Sen. Edward Kennedy, returned to the room where Kennedy had fallen ill, and made brief remarks, saying with emotion: "I'd be lying to you if I did not say right now a part of me is with him and I think that's true for all of us."

6) It seems we've all been spoiled by how many outstanding speeches or extemporaneous remarks we've already heard from Obama. I noticed that quite a few observers commented that his speech was not really special or memorable -- that it was good, but not great. Well, perhaps it could've been better, but, I'd challenge anyone to name a better Inaugural address in the past 40 years. JFK's in 1960 certainly included a couple of phrases that became historic and, argubly, made that a extraordinary speech, but, if you think of all the Presidents since, I don't think any of their Inaugural speeches were as good as Obama's. Obama eloquently signalled his new era of leadership to the world while bracing Americans, in an unusually sober way, for the tough times ahead at home. (Some Presidents don't dare get that sober in their first speech)

7) The hearsay about some rift between former President Jimmy Carter and former President Bill Clinton may amount to nothing, but it's interesting that so soon after the occasion when the former Presidents met for lunch with Obama -- and Carter went out of his way to stand a bit apart from Clinton -- that we hear about Carter ignoring Clinton moments before they all walked out for the Inauguration. Given reports that the two leaders have had ups and downs in their relationship for years, this piece of gossip, seemed a bit more intriguing.

8) On a somewhat lighter note: It was ironic, humorous and surprising to see Obama - the man who made fewer mistakes or gaffes in his campaign than any candidate in modern history - be part of a stumble - with Chief Justice Roberts - in his actual swearing in -- when they got out of synch -- and Obama paused, waiting for Roberts to correct himself.

It was NOT important in any lasting way, but, rather, just so unlikely that this particular candidate, who always seems to avoid misspeaking or any blunders, could ......Perhaps, it was a good thing -- a way for him to remind all of us to bring him down to Earth a bit!

9) Biden showed a more predictable personality trait, when, at the end of his oath, he loudly thanked the Justice Stevens. It was reminiscent of Biden making endless deferential remarks to Judge Robert Bork during the hearings he chaired 20 years ago. Biden just couldn't stay quiet - even after the most important, solemn oath he had just finished.

10) On a lighter note: Did anyone notice that as Obama, seconds before his began to take the oath of office (as he walked from his chair to the spot he stood, that he began to laugh - and, at one second, seemed to have trouble controlling what was either a nervous laugh or a burst of giddiness? Is that what prompted Justice Roberts to say: "Are you ready to take the oath now, Senator?"