Watching Tennis! What is it all about?

Very good question...I've been trying to answer to myself for ages, almost every day!
The thought crossed my mind yesterday in fact....it was about 11 PM and an hour before AO started and suddenly I just "looked" at myself thinking, what on earth am I getting excited about here?
Why am I torturing myself getting up in the middle of the night knowing how I'd feel for the rest of the day and then all over again 14 times until the tournament finishes!
That lasted for about a minute and than vanished out of my mind with the same speed it came in.
So when I woke up and saw the beautiful blue world and tennis court in the middle I just got this rush of excitement and I was off and away....

Big picture aside (which I still haven't quite explained to myself why), I have noticed I quite have a thing for single handed backhand.
I just cannot get enough of watching it, to me there is something essentially tennisy about it, like it's the heart of it somehow.

Forehand can be exciting and great, but backhand, that's kind of where joy is generated for me, no idea why.
Maybe because it looks beautiful, maybe because it's so creative and versatile, maybe I admire the skill and effort needed to pull it off so consistently during a match, and maybe because it's like a magic wand of tennis.
Maybe it's its vulnerability: you have double handed players trying to break it down and I love it when they fail.
There is something majestic about it.
Each one is unique, and almost a players signature and I love all of them: Fed's, Gasquet's , Youzhy's , Strakhovsky's, Kholi's, Stan's...they are just masterpieces in their own right.
And yes, although I am really mad about Federer's backhand which really deserves one decent write up, I have a very, very special love for Justine Henin's one, that shot was just something magical among all other SBHs, like a little boat in the roaring sea, defying all odds and sailing thorugh a storm....in style!

Then, I also love watching players move. Not run. Move. Body in flight, well coordinated, proportioned, executing a shot, oh yes!
I got a bit addicted to it when watching them from close up, so am now always trying to get good seats in matches and just enjoy and observe all the little details.
Movement is everything in tennis and it never stops to fascinate me how watching a ball can create the whole body and mind to follow it in all kind of different ways.
That's what came to me now, I may remember other bits later.
Tennis is my huge love and there so many facets of it that keep my imagination occupied quite a lot of time.

My approach to tennis is to be always above the game, either a player or a spectator. Therefore I admire and like Nole´s not as a playe but also as a great character, who plays for fans, entertain the crowds and always trying to show something special. He is in this area an exceptional player as a kind of a breath of fresh air. I do not want to speak about his amazing abilities, which he got for tennis, but there is one thing, which does really amazed me. Although he tries to be a perfect player, he also knows that to obtain fans on his side is more than to just win. I prefer watching a joyful player than well playing machines or robots and emotions belongs to the show as well.

noleisthebest wrote:Big picture aside (which I still haven't quite explained to myself why), I have noticed I quite have a thing for single handed backhand.

The SHBH has a big "risk factor" I refer to in my OP and therefore each one makes your heart beat faster cause you know it can shanked or netted. The chance of failure is a great part of sport excitement. Cause when someone pulls many of those risky shots and wins we know we have a great talent.

Look at snooker, they have widened the pockets, players are getting better but pulling centuries after centuries can be boring while someone close to win the frame but has the ball bounced by teh pocket's jaws makes it more exciting. imo anyway...

I think for me Ten is watching the sport evolve. Granted that maybe not all evolution is for the good of the game. Take when we had Borg, Connors, McEnroe. You had Vilas and Gerulaitis who were exceptional talents, but not on the same scale of success. Once Borg retired and Connors and McEnroe had lost their form you had Lendl and Wilander breaking through and in fairness were not the most inspiring of players. Once Becker and Edberg broke through, it made me feel good about the game. Players that took risk. Take the 90's into the early 21st century and essentially Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Rafter certainly contested most of the prizes and tennis became somewhat stagnant. It was only when Safin and Federer breaking through that it refreshes your love for the game. It is impossible to expect a Federer-esq talent to break through and turn the game on it's head, but I think the frustration lies that the talent is out there in the game and it is not flourishing through the top ranks and yes people are bored with the simple formula that keeping the ball alive in rallies is going to win you the point 9 times out of 10.

I now watch every tennis event possible on TV or the net in the hope that a glimpse occurs that gets me thinking yes this is it. Evolution. Sadly though consistency makes the dollars and talent can suffer because it is not nurtured early on when it needs to. To some yes the Nadal's, Djokovic's and Murray's of this world can be boring and labourious, but it is not their fault that the conditions match their games so perfectly. Like Wilander and Lendl. However through Lendl and Wilander we can learn that such tennis cannot dominate the tennis year. It was no surprise that they failed to land a Wimbledon title and that variation is not such a bad thing as it can spawn champions. Becker and Edberg flourished on the grass and were then able to expand their games to succeed on Hardcourts. Take Nadal. Not really dominant on Hardcourts despite the speed of the courts. Same with Djokovic on Clay. They are not so much sandbagging the tennis world across all surfaces. That is a testament to the limits of certain talents and skills. Hence why Roger and his dominance in 2004-2007 is something which has not been matched. There have been little windows of opportunities for Djokovic and Nadal, but to achieve that consistency is far more difficult than the credit it deserves.

There is no doubt that change is desired and needed. Each talent needs to be indulged and because not enough players come to fort on the different surfaces has left many observers frustrated. We see the Clay specialists, but not the Grass ones and hence Wimbledon can feel like a hardcourt event. Look at Monaco. Good on clay, but crap on hardcourts. There is no doubt if Wimbledon sped up that players like a Raonic, Janowicz or Harrison could have a chance to succeed and even adapt their games. The lack of continual success must really eat away at their confidence and enjoyment of their careers.

I live in the hope that tennis can evolve and produce new champions and styles. However, yes this current crop make me think of the old days of Lendl and Wilander and that it really isn't anything new or exciting. For me the Murray success fills me with optimism that British youngsters would find the urge to pick up a racquet. When I see a scrawny player like a Simon or Goffin and see them hit with such freedom and ease, it does bring a smile to my face. However, once they hit a more powerful and endurance based player, they succumb to it.

I live in the hope of change. Fools logic, but one I indulge.

Tenez wrote:
The SHBH has a big "risk factor" I refer to in my OP and therefore each one makes your heart beat faster cause you know it can shanked or netted. The chance of failure is a great part of sport excitement. Cause when someone pulls many of those risky shots and wins we know we have a great talent.

Look at snooker, they have widened the pockets, players are getting better but pulling centuries after centuries can be boring while someone close to win the frame but has the ball bounced by teh pocket's jaws makes it more exciting. imo anyway...

Yes, that's the exact feeling .

BTW, didn't know they widened pockets in snooker, what's next, make the balls smaller

paulcz wrote:I prefer watching a joyful player than well playing machines or robots and emotions belongs to the show as well.

Interesting cause with me it's the opposite cause I know the game is linked to the character so if someone plays really well then his character should intrigue me. Davydenko and Nalbandian though very different in their own way are typical cases. They don't appeal to teh public at large but I find them interesting, wanting to know more from them than I would of a Nadal or Agassi with whom what you see is what you get...but little substance behind.

But in any case, I am watching a sport and what I like in the rallies, during play, cannot be linked to personalities cause if it is then you are just wanting the point to be "sorted out". My main point here is why watching rallies? and what I like about them.

LK you make good points...but I was essentially talking about watching tennis (rallies). What do you like in it?

For instance we were talking about Tomic. I don;t like his game and I am not sure why. He stands very far back but can generate ridiculous power and makes his shots safe and secure despite putting the pace. That is a real talent but it's also a very powerful arm. He hits the ball like I hit a pingpong ball. He is a curious player. If he coudl do what he does standing close he woudl be deadly and I woudl like his game better but teh fact he doesn't like to take risk and bank on his easy power is for me a turn off.

I think in tennis what I enjoy is someone making a shot on instinct. Take like Federer who turn a point on it's head with the one shot. I do like the talents of Dolgo, Fognini, Dimitrov, Paire, Gasquet. All very talented, great shot makers but succumb to the consistency that is dictated by the player who can hit for longer in rallies. That said I don't mind an Iron Man war if it can deliver on emotion. Take Nadal v Djokovic throughout 2011 and the desparation on Nadal's face was one which was nice to see because he knew that physically he had been surpassed. You could see just hanging with Djokovic brought out some emotion even if he is annoying and dis-tasteful to some.

The thing about tennis I enjoy is the early round matches of a Slam. That is where you find mini-classic match ups which for a lack of profile don't get the recognition they deserve.

As much as I support Murray, I don't find his emotions as something spontanious. I don't think he lives or enjoys the moment. Even in his match with Djokovic at the US Open and he clinched the first set and gave out a 'Commmeeeee Onnnnn' despite the veins nearly bursting out his neck, I felt there was too much control of emotions and whilst that is important, humanity goes along way. That's why I would cheer a Hewitt because his emotions were one of living in the moment and really summoning that fire from the belly. Connors esq in some ways whilst there is the will to win, there is the will to compete and enjoy the tennis too. Something I felt when I watched Connors and something I felt when watching Hewitt.

When I watch Tomic I see someone that is thinking too much about what he wants to do. If you don't know how your going to approach a match before it commences, then how are you going to work out what to do when on court. I feel Tomic is trying to be too wise and it is costing him matches. For all of Tsonga's faults in his game, he plays each match the same and that is what I respect in his game. If it goes wrong, he doesn't panic and continues to play the same. Some may argue it is a lack of variation in talent, but least his game has a purity to it because he isn't trying to be any different. I guess that is why percentage tennis is so successful.

legendkillar wrote:As much as I support Murray, I don't find his emotions as something spontanious. I don't think he lives or enjoys the moment.

He is a professional in every sense. He decided to sacrify the use of his talent to be more successful and it simply shows. It's a choice which says a lot about his character. And now the power he can generate is much safer thanks to those big muscles. There are hardly any loose shots with him. It's all controlled power...no different than Nadal his idol.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:As much as I support Murray, I don't find his emotions as something spontanious. I don't think he lives or enjoys the moment.

He is a professional in every sense. He decided to sacrify the use of his talent to be more successful and it simply shows. It's a choice which says a lot about his character. And now the power he can generate is much safer thanks to those big muscles. There are hardly any loose shots with him. It's all controlled power...no different than Nadal his idol.

I think it is the whole winning v participation argument. My view has always been the same. As a junior he looked a real talent and now he doesn't maximise the talent he has/had even. I don't begrudge anyone who can blast someone from the court. However, when I look at Andy and the shots he can be capable of I think it is a shame his variation suffered as the result of his quest for physical perfection. In a way like Roddick, but the variance in results.

Nadal from the off was destined to be a physical imposing brute. I can't recall a time in the past that Nadal's play looked any different to what it does now. When I look the 2 Andy's, it makes me sigh.

legendkillar wrote:. When I look the 2 Andy's, it makes me sigh.

If the "old" Andy was a Ukrainan or Hungarian for example, you wouldn't've even heard about him. To me, he has been over-hyped and pushed from day one.
I never enjoyed watching him, always labourious, strained and in some sort of agony with himself. Utter pain to watch.
The only time I can remember him looking good was when Nadal retired against him in AO.

I don;t think he ever was a varied player. He was a pusher, slicer and frustrated lots of players in his winning ways then. I do not call this talent nor variety as they were not really risky shots and he was still covering lots of ground even before he bulked up. You are not talented cause you can throw a drop shot there and then.

I do not think Murray coudl have won by attacking cause that requires a great talent. BY bulking up he was able to hold his ground, gave himself a bigger racquet sweet spot (that what muscles do) and allowed him to hit harder while adding spin and security. His BH was always very good I agree but he won most of his matches then on the distance overlasting guys like Melzer, Benetteau, Delpo, Gasquet and many others.

I disagree. I think Andy has/had talent. In his junior days he could play the guys off court all day. Variation is what I define as talent. He actually had aggression in his play. Cue Gilbert and all that died and he actually developed a serve, incorporated a lot of safety into his play and then it was Agassi mark II. I still to this day don't understand why he thought Maclaghan could develop safety play better than Gilbert.

The Djokovic's, Nadal's and Murray's of this world are limited in terms of talent because of the quest to outlast the other.

Well he had talent but not outstanding talent. You saw how he was constantly outplayed by Gasquet, how he was convincingly beaten by Haase in their first match, was outlasted by Monfils and even Benetteau, Melzer, Cilic and I certainly do not remember him as an agressive player. Never! Please show me clips! I am happy to change my mind under evidence.

I agree he isn't the most talented player, this is the whole point I am making. His talent was limited. I shall have to dig some clips out later as my work comp is rogered by an old IE7!

Take 2009 at the Slams. He was convincingly blasted off the court by harder hitters Verdasco, Gonzalez, Roddick and Cilic. That was because instead of building on 2008 where he managed to shorten some of the rallies he went beyond safety and moonballing and it was almost like practice hitting in most of his performances.

Look at the Murray BH and that is his strongest shot. The FH isn't so dominating or fluent hence why his confidence in going for it for more than 2-3 strokes at time is limited.

I don't deny that Andy isn't limited or less talented than many others. For want of stronger mentality at the US Open either Lopez or Cilic could've taken him out.

And that is my very point. He knew he did not have the talent to blast his way to win nor coudl win at a higher level by upsetting players sending them soft, sliced balls. He got Haas once doing that but sooner or later he woudl have been found out....and this is why he had early exits in slams.

Well the slice is a very under-used shot from him nowadays and to some of the powderpuff mental midgets out there, it can work. So much of his play was exploited by the poor length. Playing up the deuce court like he did countless times just got the treatment it deserved. Look at the 2010 AO final. Federer dismantled him in such an manner that it was embarrassing. His lengths have improved, but that is not to say his shots have. For me yes he can use the FH, but it is not a shot that dictates.

It has to be said though he isn't the only that has capitalised on mental and physical wearings of his opponent. Many have been outplayed and still managed to win. I even remember Feds US Open in 2007 when both Lopez and Isner went for broke by trying to blast Federer from the court and sandbagged after the first set and both went on to lose in 4.

I blame Federer for these fitness freaks

Yes Federer certainly did not give players much choice cause they knew they were not going to outsmart him. Safin showed that Federer had trouble controlling a heavy ball and Nadal exploited that by adding spin to it...though I don't think Nadal's game was developped from Safin nor for Fed....but that's another matter.

I think players against Federer in his pomp could never dictate rallies. Safin had those rare moments where he could control points against Federer and play a very high tempo similar to Soderling against Nadal FO 2009 and we know how rare those performances are. Despite the fact that yes Nadal has been un-done by opponents playing his brand of tennis, we have yet to someone beat Federer in a Federer-esq manner

However I have been spoilt by the past and the 80's were a good decade for tennis despite the Lendl/Wilander years, they didn't last as long as the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray years which has gotten old very fast and leaves tennis in a precarious position that only change can rescue the sport.

legendkillar wrote:I think players against Federer in his pomp could never dictate rallies.

From memory, Davy was pretty good against Fed in the first WTF final in London in 2009. It was his first win over him after 13 straight losses as well.

Lendl lasted quite a bit. From Connors to Courier!!! not bad. And an excellent attacking player....I enjoyed his long run very much.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think players against Federer in his pomp could never dictate rallies.

From memory, Davy was pretty good against Fed in the first WTF final in London in 2009. It was his first win over him after 13 straight losses as well.

I would say the closest to outsmart Federer was Nalby....Coria could do for a set....

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think players against Federer in his pomp could never dictate rallies.

From memory, Davy was pretty good against Fed in the first WTF final in London in 2009. It was his first win over him after 13 straight losses as well.

I would say the closest to outsmart Federer was Nalby....Coria could do for a set....

you're right, I just had a look at the clip from that match (saw it live from under the roof scenario), don't know how he managed to lose it, had some slips in concentration, but remember Davy moved so well and fast then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z0xMd52J0

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think players against Federer in his pomp could never dictate rallies.

From memory, Davy was pretty good against Fed in the first WTF final in London in 2009. It was his first win over him after 13 straight losses as well.

In fairness everyone there was pretty cream crackered. For me I think Safin AO05 and Nalby WTF05 have been the closest to perfection as I can recall against Federer.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think players against Federer in his pomp could never dictate rallies.

From memory, Davy was pretty good against Fed in the first WTF final in London in 2009. It was his first win over him after 13 straight losses as well.

I would say the closest to outsmart Federer was Nalby....Coria could do for a set....

you're right, I just had a look at the clip from that match (saw it live from under the roof scenario), don't know how he managed to lose it, had some slips in concentration, but remember Davy moved so well and fast then.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z0xMd52J0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z0xMd52J0[/quote[/url]]

Great match/clip. Federer did well to come back and could really have won it but Davy showed his talent there. A clip for rotla to check!

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think players against Federer in his pomp could never dictate rallies.

From memory, Davy was pretty good against Fed in the first WTF final in London in 2009. It was his first win over him after 13 straight losses as well.

In fairness everyone there was pretty cream crackered. For me I think Safin AO05 and Nalby WTF05 have been the closest to perfection as I can recall against Federer.

Yes but AO05 could/should have been a 4 setter. Another match Fed lost from a winning position. I was more impressed by Nalby v Federer in the winter HC (Paris and Madrid). WTF 05 Fed had an ankle injury....which was not the case when he beat Fed twice in a row in 06 07...or was it 08?

I think it was 2007 when he won back to back titles

legendkillar wrote:I agree he isn't the most talented player, this is the whole point I am making. His talent was limited.

I don't deny that Andy isn't limited or less talented than many others. For want of stronger mentality at the US Open either Lopez or Cilic could've taken him out.

Can you say like 5 or so players who you think are more talented than murray please? If you think his talent is limited, but is still more talented than nalbandian i wonder who you will put and where you put nalbandian in terms of talent.

yes in 07 i think he beat nadal and feds back to back in madrid and then paris, brilliant to watch.
Even feds seemed powerless to stop him as nalby was hitting winners off BOTH sides. There wasn't a safe place to go there.

luvsports! wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I agree he isn't the most talented player, this is the whole point I am making. His talent was limited.

I don't deny that Andy isn't limited or less talented than many others. For want of stronger mentality at the US Open either Lopez or Cilic could've taken him out.

Can you say like 5 or so players who you think are more talented than murray please? If you think his talent is limited, but is still more talented than nalbandian i wonder who you will put and where you put nalbandian in terms of talent.

I could

Federer, Gasquet, Dolgopolov, Tsonga, Djokovic.

Are we still banging on about Nalby?

If you really want to kiss his arse that much I am sure there isn't much of a queue

name 10 more.

mature lk

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

(stooping to lk's level)

your face is zzzzzz

Why not champion Nalby and his talent with a thread detailing the talent that is

i will after my exams

Pffft excuses

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:I prefer watching a joyful player than well playing machines or robots and emotions belongs to the show as well.

Interesting cause with me it's the opposite cause I know the game is linked to the character so if someone plays really well then his character should intrigue me. Davydenko and Nalbandian though very different in their own way are typical cases. They don't appeal to teh public at large but I find them interesting, wanting to know more from them than I would of a Nadal or Agassi with whom what you see is what you get...but little substance behind.

But in any case, I am watching a sport and what I like in the rallies, during play, cannot be linked to personalities cause if it is then you are just wanting the point to be "sorted out". My main point here is why watching rallies? and what I like about them.

My point was done as an honour to Nole, who belongs to only few top players who plays and lives with the crowds.

As for rallies what does really impress me is a game variaty. I just prefer variaty against heavy strokes. Every good player can learn how to bash the ball pretty well, but what makes difference between them is to play the most surprising shot or the best clever shot. Here I need to lift Nole again. Although sometimes he should play more sharper, he brilliantly uses his body swiftness and also his wrist ability for playing the shortest spinny crosses and changes a ball direction at the latest moments. Just excellent shots.

Yes, variety is so important, provided you've got it!
There's nothing better than player using every inch of the court, on the inside, of course.
That's where I think DBH started rotting tennis on the inside. Yes, it gives you more power and control, but you lose the best tennis can offer.
I think there is a need to put a clear division between playing and watching tennis now because they are two very different worlds with almost no bridge to span the gap.
When you see a Novak Murray match you just wonder and doze off, "best"case scenario for me is Murray gets knocked out of the position and nets a backhand on the run.
In those matches, it's always Novak that tries to bring any creativity and flair to the table.
Murray, just a desperate need to "outclever" you with nothing more than his old frustrating ways.
Unlike Nadal, who's got this relaxed, accomplished aura about him in his bludgeoining ways, with Murray, you feel some kind of despair, need to vent out some long pent-up frustration.
And he's always been like that, esp against Federer.
I saw just a few last games of his match last night, and he came across worse than ever, he was winning comfortably, yet looked so wound up within himself, "f" word coming out in some spasmatic fashion almost after every point. I don't know what his problem is, maybe that's how Lendl tries to have Murray "discover" his "boxer" self, but it just looks so ugly.
I suppose even like that, he brings this colourful dark grey hue in the rich ATP palette of characters, but definitely not my cup of tea.
Instead of getting lighter and easier with himself, he is going the opposite direction.
I don't know how I ended up taking about him, as this is the thread about why we like to watch tennis, but I suppose sometimes by knowing what we don't like, adds to knowing what we like a bit more.

paulcz wrote: Every good player can learn how to bash the ball pretty well, but what makes difference between them is to play the most surprising shot or the best clever shot. Here I need to lift Nole again. Although sometimes he should play more sharper, he brilliantly uses his body swiftness and also his wrist ability for playing the shortest spinny crosses and changes a ball direction at the latest moments. Just excellent shots.

Not quite otherwise they would. It's doing it consitently AND under pressure that sorts the champs from the rest. The problem I have with Djoko, Murray and Nadal is that they are often chasing their opponent's balls so that limits the variety in the sense that they are reacting and not acting. The match is in Tsonga, Federer or even Seppi's racquet even if they might lose more often than not they know that if they execute well, those 3 retrievers can just wait and buy time.

noleisthebest wrote:Yes, variety is so important, provided you've got it!
There's nothing better than player using every inch of the court, on the inside, of course.
That's where I think DBH started rotting tennis on the inside. Yes, it gives you more power and control, but you lose the best tennis can offer.
I think there is a need to put a clear division between playing and watching tennis now because they are two very different worlds with almost no bridge to span the gap.
When you see a Novak Murray match you just wonder and doze off, "best"case scenario for me is Murray gets knocked out of the position and nets a backhand on the run.
In those matches, it's always Novak that tries to bring any creativity and flair to the table.
Murray, just a desperate need to "outclever" you with nothing more than his old frustrating ways.
Unlike Nadal, who's got this relaxed, accomplished aura about him in his bludgeoining ways, with Murray, you feel some kind of despair, need to vent out some long pent-up frustration.
And he's always been like that, esp against Federer.
I saw just a few last games of his match last night, and he came across worse than ever, he was winning comfortably, yet looked so wound up within himself, "f" word coming out in some spasmatic fashion almost after every point. I don't know what his problem is, maybe that's how Lendl tries to have Murray "discover" his "boxer" self, but it just looks so ugly.
I suppose even like that, he brings this colourful dark grey hue in the rich ATP palette of characters, but definitely not my cup of tea.
Instead of getting lighter and easier with himself, he is going the opposite direction.
I don't know how I ended up taking about him, as this is the thread about why we like to watch tennis, but I suppose sometimes by knowing what we don't like, adds to knowing what we like a bit more.

Good post. I disagree with the first part but agree much with teh second one.

I know 606V2 is a swear word here, but they are currently running a poll for GOAT and I thought emancipator's piece on Federer was top notch and for his followers I thought I would post it here

2001, Wimbledon Centre Court; defending and seven time Wimbledon champion 'Pistol' Pete Sampras, the man who had reigned at the top of men's tennis for close to a decade and considered by many to be unbeatable on this hallowed turf is at crisis point. At two sets all, 5-6 and 15-40 down in the deciding set, the ruthlessly efficient Sampras is facing match point.

It had been five years since anyone had managed to beat him in this tournament. His opponent a relatively unknown challenger in the form of Swiss teenager, 19 year old Roger Federer, is considered to be a prodigious but erratic talent. He seems to have all the shots but doesn't know quite how to put them together. His temperament has also been questionable. Today, however, things appear to be different. For nearly four hours the two protagonists have battled. To the surprise of the enthralled on lookers it was Federer who took the opening set. But Sampras hit back as any great champion is expected to do. The audience fully expected him to motor on and over power the youngster, except, as the match wore on, it appeared as if the Swiss was the one getting stronger, whilst Sampras appeared more and more uneasy. By the time the match score had reached two sets all, the tension had become palpable. The Centre Court crowd knew that there were no longer any favourites in this match; this would be a dog-fight, survival of the fittest - and the bravest; reputations would count for nothing.

On countless occasions throughout his career Sampras had bailed himself out of tight spots with his booming, swerving, pin-point accurate serve; the serve universally acclaimed as the greatest in history. He wipes sweat from his brow, places the ball against the racket, looks up, coils himself into the releasing position, then with a seamlessly fluid motion he serves a missile out wide to Federer's forehand and charges towards the net. Federer takes a step towards the ball and unleashes a forehand that whizzes past Sampras for a clean winner. He crumples to his knees in disbelief and celebration. A split-second of silence is followed by an eruption as the Centre Court crowd rise as one to salute a new King. The BBC commentator proclaims the birth of a new star. It is indeed the dawn of a new era.. The Federer era.

Looking back it was a poignant moment in sporting history. The one occasion on which the two greatest champions of the modern era were to play each other, and as fate would have it, on the court most beloved to either of them. It was a reminder of days gone by and a harbinger of those yet to come.

It would be another couple of years before Federer would really hit the heights, and what heights! 17 grand slams from 24 finals, including 7 Wimbledon titles. Over 300 weeks as the number one player in the world, including 237 consecutive weeks at the top spot. 6 World Tour Final victories from 8 finals. 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals; 34 consecutive grand slam quarter finals (and counting); a run of 24 consecutive finals victories in all tournaments, 65 consecutive match wins on grass, 56 consecutive match wins on hardcourt, five consecutive Wimbledon and US Open titles, a run of 18 grand slam finals out of 19 grand slam tournaments played, 21 masters titles.. and on and on.. all of them records, many of them by a considerable distance. There are at least half a dozen Wikipedia articles dedicated to the career achievements and compiled statistics/records of Roger Federer. Peruse them at your own leisure - if you've got a few days to spare that is

But what makes Federer really stand out amongst the legends of tennis and indeed any sport is his unique game. Everything about his game is beautiful, everything is seemingly effortless. He glides around the court unhurried, with uncanny footwork and balletic grace. A sixth sense for being at the right place at the right time. He plays with perfect technique. Like an artist, Federer creates masterpieces; the court is his canvas. At heart, he is an attacking player who plays the game the right way; always looking to seize the initiative, to hit outright winners, to win spectacularly and brilliantly. He can hit every shot in the book. But he can also grind and play great defense. If it is so required he can switch to plan b, c, d, whatever it takes. In a sport dominated by super athletes, Federer at his peak was as fast and durable as they come. Modern tennis is played predominantly from the baseline (a stark contrast to the tennis of Sampras's heydey which was mainly serve and volley based, with the majority of points won at the net) and Roger Federer can play the baseline game as well as anyone. But he can do so much more. He can mix spins and slices, lobs and dropshots, powerful winners and delicate touch, from the back of the court or at the net. It is this unique fusion of power, skill and aesthetic grace, that has captured the imagination of millions of fans around the world. Federer doesn't just win, he wins with style.

When Federer established himself as the number one player in the world in late 2003 people were already starting to whisper about this potential phenomenon. He emerged from a group of fantastically talented youngsters: Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Haas, to establish himself as THE man to beat. As the years rolled by he gathered steam, and the initial curiosity that follows the emergence of any great talent - the excitement of thinking about all the possibilites - was replaced by amazement then incredulity and finally awe. As Andre Agassi said, 'Federer was the guy who came and took the game light years ahead.' He looked like something from the future. The American media even dubbed him 'Darth Federer' (in reference to his super-natural gifts and black clothing) at the 2007 US Open. More than anything else, the Roger Federer phenomenon turned the sport of tennis, which had been suffering a slump in popularity following the years of serve dominated play, into one of the most popular spectator sports in the world. He was and remains to this day, although not to the same extent, a phenom. Or as David Foster Wallace wrote in the New York Times:

"Roger Federer is one of those rare, preternatural athletes who appear to be exempt, at least in part, from certain physical laws. Good analogues here include Michael Jordan, who could not only jump inhumanly high but actually hang there a beat or two longer than gravity allows, and Muhammad Ali, who really could “float” across the canvas and land two or three jabs in the clock-time required for one. There are probably a half-dozen other examples since 1960. And Federer is of this type — a type that one could call genius, or mutant, or avatar. He is never hurried or off-balance. The approaching ball hangs, for him, a split-second longer than it ought to. His movements are lithe rather than athletic. Like Ali, Jordan, Maradona, and Gretzky, he seems both less and more substantial than the men he faces. Particularly in the all-white that Wimbledon enjoys getting away with still requiring, he looks like what he may well (I think) be: a creature whose body is both flesh and, somehow, light." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (By the way - this article by Wallace entitled 'Roger Federer as a religious experience' is a great read)

Federer's style and success has allowed him to transcend the sport in a way that few sportsmen in history can match. He is a record four time winner of the prestigious Laureus Sportsman of the Year Award. In a recent poll conducted across 25 countries with 51,000 participants he was voted as the second most trusted person in the world after Nelson Mandela. During the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, Federer received the loudest cheer of the night when he carried the Swiss flag into the stadium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddojLWIjKK4 At the London Olympics Federer's pre-Olympic presser had more than 700 journalists, more than any other star at the games. He was mobbed by crowds during his recent tour of South America with political and sporting dignitaries (including Pele and Maradonna) feting him. He has the most impressive endorsement portfolio in all of sports including blue chip companies such as Nike, Mercedes-Benz (global ambassador), Wilson, Rolex, Credite Suisse, Gillette, Moet & Chandon etc.

But despite all the accolades Federer has remained a likeable, down to earth person. His fellow tennis professionals have voted him the winner of the annual Steffan Edberg Sportsmanship award a record eight times. He is the President of the ATP players council and in this capacity has campaigned for the benefit of all the players on the tour, including negotiating a fairer distribution of prize money for players who lose in the earlier rounds of the slams. The Roger Federer foundation is a charitable organisation with the stated mission of empowering children through education; it is involved in numerous projects throughout Africa.

It is incredible that with so many distractions (he's married with two young children to boot) Federer has still managed to stay at the top of such a global and competitive sport. As things stand he is the number 2 ranked player in the world and indeed was, just a few short months ago, the number one player in the world. Tennis has traditionally been a young man's sport but Roger Federer has redefined the parameters. I firmly believe that Federer is one of the outstanding candidates for the greatest sportsman of all time accolade. He fits all of the criteria: a sporting phenomenon, unmatched in his sport, an incredible record in a globally competitive sport which is both physical and skill-based, a global sporting icon who is one of the most popular sportsmen on the planet and a great role model, who plays hard but fair. But of course the Federer story is not over yet. He has declared his intention to play until the 2016 Olympic Games. There may yet be a few more pages to add to Wikipedia


Some quotes:

"[In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer" - Jimmy Connors

"He is the most naturally talented player I have ever seen in my life" - John McEnroe

"He moves like a whisper and executes like a wrecking ball" - Nick Bollettieri (legendary tennis coach)

"He is the most perfect machine I have ever seen playing tennis" - Diego Maradonna

"Federer is capable of playing shots that other players don't even think of" - Ivan Lendl

"We are witnessing history. This is the most dominant athlete on planet earth today" - Jim Courier (4 time grand slam champion)

"Federer is the best player in history - no other player has ever had so much quality" - Rafael Nadal

"Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground. That's the sign of a great champion." - Rod Laver

"He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them [other players], so many years; there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision." - Andre Agassi

"He's a real person. He's not an enigma. Off the court he's not trying to be somebody. If you met him at McDonald's and you didn't know who he was, you would have no idea that he's one of the best athletes in the world" - Andy Roddick

"Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's even from the same planet" - Novak Djokovic

emancipator

ps - For those of you who haven't seen the The Fed Express in action, the following video might give you some idea of what he's all about
http://vimeo.com/40765561

Very good reading! Sends my warm regards to "the" Emancipator.