Federer Finally Finds A Way to Beat Nadal

I wasn't sure I'd ever see Roger Federer defeat Rafael Nadal again.

I started closely following Federer sometime in 2006 or 2007 and that was when he began, coincidentally, to lose - consistently - to Nadal in major tournaments. I think I watched part of one match Fed won against the lefty from Majorca, Spain, but, almost all signs during the past few years have suggested that Nadal had Federer's number. Nadal has always dominated Federer on clay, highlighted by his reign of success at the French Open. Plus, in the past two years, when Rafa's overall game has improved amazingly, he caught up to Federer on hard courts, and, even passed him last year, when he won three of the Grand Slam tournaments, including Wimbledon and the US Open, where Roger had been King for years.

Meanwhile, Federer was getting a bit old to remain in "peak" form. He'd won 16 Slams after the 2010 Australian Open. He'd gotten married and had kids. What more could this uniquely talented player from Switzerland do? It seemed his skills were starting to fade a little bit. He seeemed to hit less "winners." His serve was a bit more erratic. Then, strikingly, in 2009 and 2010, Federer began to lose "big" points in pivotal moments -- points he almost always had won in the past. These lapses seemed due to sporadic loss of his tremendous confidence. In the past year, Federer got knocked out of the French Open and Wimbledon before reaching the seminfinals. (Federer, before his loss at the French, previously had reached at least the semifinals in 23 consecutive Grand Slam events dating back to 2004. Remarkable!)

It had gotten to the point where I said to my brother: "Federer either has to adjust the way he plays against Nadal or he may never beat him....."

I remember saying that more than once, but, especially after watching the 2009 Australian Open, when Nadal kept relentlessly hitting the ball deep to Federer's backhand for the entire match and the strategy was key in his winning in five sets.

Then, in the middle of a difficult 2010 - when, Federer was in his rough stretch, he hired tennis coach Paul Annacone, who had previously coached Pete Sampras. This was a Big Deal, to me, because I'd heard, like other tennis fans, that Federer had preferred not having a coach. It seemed, finally, that Fed realized he had to change a few things to stay on top and compete with Rafa and others.

Last Sunday, I was delighted to notice changes in Federer's game as he defeated Nadal in the ATP, year-end finals of the Master's tournament in London 6-3, 2-6, 6-1.

How did Federer do it on Sunday? What was different about his game vs. Nadal?

Federer was more aggressive, overall. He was trying to end rallies with Nadal earlier than in the past, and, he succeeded, to some degree. In fact, commentators noted the match was moving along quicker than most between the two rivals as a result. One reason: Federer hit more "winners" or tried to unsuccessfully, meaning Rafa had far less opportunities to control the outcome. (Other opponents have used this approach vs. Nadal with at least some success.)

Federer tried to return Nadal's second serve noticeably harder. This was striking from the start. In his first game returning serve, Federer hit his first return hard for three unforced errors, but the intent signaled his change in approach. It was a key, pleasant surprise because, unless one takes those kind of chances vs. Nadal, it can be almost impossible to beat him. Nadal wins most long rallies.

Federer tried to hit more backhand winners - and hit a few at key moments. Federer, in past matches with Rafa, has been pinned back on his backhand side, often on the defensive. In this match, Federer kept Nadal off-balance by hitting more backhands cross-court, including a few beautiful shots for winners.

Federer took advantage of moments when he could volley well at net. It's hard to avoid Nadal's terrific passing shots, but, Federer, by coming to the net more often, kept Nadal a bit more off balance, and, he was able to win a number of points from the net. That hasn't always been true in past matches with these two.

Federer didn't hit as many soft shots back in the middle of the court. In the past, Federer's soft returns down the middle have allowed Nadal to tee off, and belt forehands that ended up getting Federer on the run and on the defensive for the rest of the point. In this match Sunday, Federer appeared more focused on the placement of many shots and forced Nadal to move more. This allowed Fed to be the one to belt the winner off an average Nadal return in what was a role reversal.

Federer kept his confidence high for the whole match. There was one point in the match when Nadal was coming on strong to win the second set, and it seemed Federer was losing confidence and focus. In the past year or two, this often was a dynamic that lingered and caused Federer trouble in matches with Nadal or others. This time, Federer came out for the third set on a mission, and stepped up his game, winning 6-1, a surprising, difficult feat vs. Nadal.

Federer's serve was generally excellent. When it was on, he won, and when it wasn't he lost. For Federer to defeat Nadal at this stage of his career, he must serve well - period. Nadal is simply too good, too inexhaustible for Federer to outlast without that strength of his working. Federer, with a good serve, often can cruise through his service games.

Nadal was a bit off his game, giving Federer a good opportunity to win. Nadal had played a tough, three-set match with Andy Murray the day before, and, in certain moments, appeared to play a bit below his normal standards. Nadal didn't keep running in pursuit of a few apparent winning shots Federer hit - a sight we're all unaccustomed to given that he never seems to stop chasing almost every ball. Perhaps he was a bit fatigued.

Hey, I don't know if Sunday's match really will end up signifying real changes in how Federer plays against Nadal in the future. However, I think it suggests that Federer is trying new approaches with Nadal, and, as a result, he should have a greater chance to win. You see, as much as I love watching Federer, no one can dispute Nadal is the better player now. It's a question of whether Federer can compete with Nadal on a handful more occasions - perhaps in a few Slam events - to give the tennis world a bit more sampling of this incredible rivalry.

I wrote months ago that I thought Federer's "window" for potentially defeating Nadal in a major event was narrowing rapidly. I still believe that. In fact, I think by the end of 2011 or early 2012, Federer's chances will have diminished further. However, now, after seeing him try a few improvements that seem inspired by his new coach, I think Federer might have a chance to beat Nadal one more time. I find that exciting and it exemplifies what I love about sports. Just when you think you can predict the outcome, things change unpredictably.

For Roger Federer, at the end of his career, to find new ways to defeat his greatest nemesis, Rafael Nadal, is an unlikely, but intriguing queest that I'll follow very closely.

Content Is Overlooked in Today's National Politics

The truth, it seems, never mattered less in American politics.

Exhibit One: The Republican Party has done nothing for the past two years but attempt to obstruct progress for President Barack Obama. Yet, the Republicans just won an unprecedented number of US House seats in the mid-term elections, regaining a majority. Now, sure, opponents of Obama might be happy, but should voters on the left or the right ever reward pure obstruction?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, immediately after the election, had the gall to say that his party's top priority will be to work toward the removal of President Obama from the White House in 2012. Again, McConnell is openly indicating that Republicans won't be focused on compromising or trying to get things done (for a change) for the country.

Does anyone care about what McConnell or other top Republicans say? Is anyone listening?

I think it matters a lot that the Republicans have tried to "do nothing" for two years, don't you? Are you out there, American people? I don't know what people are thinking anymore. I swear.
A majority just voted for Republicans with an apparent message against "too much government," but the most thoughtful of those voters should have paid attention to what Democrats were at least trying to do vs. Republicans' intent - which was solely to hurt Obama.

Of course, many voters - perhaps a majority - have grown so disenchanted with Washington that they're fed up with all incumbents. There are good reasons for much disgust. In a time of crisis, politicians have been as cowardly and self-protective as ever. Yet, that's still shouldn't mean that the worst actors - the Republicans - who acknowledged their purely obstructionist motives - should be rewarded in the midterm elections!!! That's nutty. That's discouraging. That suggests our system does not work.

As we've all learned, Obama makes himself too easy - and, too long - a target, at times and that's contributed to his problems, but he DID inherit more crises than any President in my lifetime. People should take that into account. It's a hard time for anyone to be President.

The cowardly behavior in the US House and Senate has not made things easier for Obama. He's had far too few vocal, supportive allies in the Congress. Plus, generally, virtually no one in the US House or US Senate is showing any leadership these days. Almost all public policy discussion is framed by glaring partisan differences. When was the last time a politician stepped forward to take a difficult, unpopular stand? Or a Congressman or senator got rewarded for trying to compromise to get something done?

It takes Jon Stewart to organize a rally in Washington calling for a return to "sanity." Sounds like a one-time joke, but, the truth is that often one can hear more "straight talk" from stand-up comics or hosts like Stewart than from our elected officials.

It seems the whole system has gone bankrupt. The television media is preoccupied with covering the "entertainment" angle to serious topics. So, whenever conflict or hype can be used to frame a story, the news producers write the story that way. The actual content has not only become less important, but, often, it's openly disregarded or downplayed.

Look at former President George W. Bush's television appearances this past week to promote his new book. The network shows played up a few sound bites, but, I would have preferred more emphasis on the fact that Bush spoke a bit more about previously-overlooked truths about the lack of any rationale by his administration to invade Iraq. It's interesting: The news media often tells us what someone like Bush said or didn't say, but, rarely includes raw facts, background and context to major stories. Bush said, in a relatively casual way, he had approved of water-boarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 actions, without prompting much followup, for example. In the end, the coverage presented Bush's sound bites without putting his admissions, omissions and inaccurate remarks together. Bush tried to claim that while he was disappointed when weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq, he never was pushed, aggressively, on how the hell he could justify going to war against Iraq without evidence of WMD.

The television media doesn't even try to identify or emphasize the truth. If they get their "entertainment" from a segment, that's all they care about. And, they never want to have an interviewer get too tough or edgy with a guest - even if they're discussing whether a war had to happen!

I go on this tangent about coverage because it has impacted everything about Obama's first two years. The media has done little or nothing to put the extraordinary spending by the federal government into perspective. And, while the Obama team did a very poor job explaining its health care reform proposals during the long, ugly debate on that, the news media was even worse. The media failed to explain how " watered-down" the bill was. They failed to explain all the money and lobbying that went on behind the scenes and how that altered the context of what unfolded.

What's sad is that Obama inspired people during his 2008 campaign and spoke a lot about rising above partisan politics. He spoke about how he could bring people together. He appeared to care a bit more about principle and "doing the right thing" regardless of partisan details. Now, the Republicans have, at least temporarily, succeeded in re-labeling Obama as a "big-spending liberal" who favors government involvement all the time, no matter what the costs. Obama should have more aggressively warded off his opponents' attempts to tarnish him, but, at the same time, the media failed to separate, label and assess Obama's various decisions.

One would think that President Obama and those around him would have learned by now that they have to speak up and be clear about their goals, their day-to-day responses to developments, defending themselves against unfair attacks and continuing to clarify their positions - all the time - so that the American people and the news media understand.

It's interesting that the Obama team, for all their savvy in the 2008 campaign, has shown poor judgement in how they use the President's appearances on trips and on television. I believe one main mistake has been overexposing Obama. He's been so visible so often in his first two years that I think people tune him out now. To become more effective, in my view, he should limit his media appearances and trips more.

In addition, it'd help if Obama took more risks and offered content that reflected his true convictions a bit more often -- even if it alienates a few more politicians or interest groups.

You see, if the Obama people don't figure this out, the Republicans will keep getting attention by using more "shallow" content and superficial presentation. Sarah Palin is about to launch a new "reality" TV show on Alaska - a move that, to me, will just remind people of how unqualified and ill-fitting she'd be as a potential President. But.....the television networks and cable stations are all over the Palin show. Palin and some of her Republican peers understand how superficial and entertainment-oriented television is. They take advantage of it and no one calls them on their lack of substance.

It's be so easy for reporters, producers and editors help the American people see how unqualified Palin is. They just have to do their old jobs -- to seek and report the truth.

The problem is that the companies that own news organizations today - and the news executives who work for them - don't care as much about truth-seeking today. Content doesn't matter as much. It's an unhealthy climate - and that helps explain why individuals like Palin and Glenn Beck can attract attention rather than scrutiny.

Let's hope we can transition into a better era, when the truth matters a lot more.