SO I WAS A DOUBTER – SORRY, ROGER
A guy from Switzerland, who owns a cow named Juliette, and also, for years, was used to cowing foes, is back at that business, silencing the doubters like me. We are delighted – at least I am – to eat crow (I’m told either sautéed or roasted is preferable), and bear witness that Roger Federer is yet capable of divine acts with a tennis racket.
Saving the best for last during a painful season in which he lost dozen times to lesser beings, won only two so-so tournaments, certainly appeared to have lost a step and strict control of his serve and forehand, Federer wowed a full-house at Ashe Stadium yesterday. And, yes, he had again cowed seven troublesome guys along the major route to continue as the U.S. Open champion. Five straight, leaving Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Novak Djokjovic and now Andy Murray tattoed with his tire tracks.
Regardless of the stumbles and disappointments, any time you have a US Open on your resume’ it’s a splendid campaign.
Oh yes, Murray was a punching bag (though a very promising one) at the other end of the court, the great bright hope of Great Britain, 21-year-old Andy Murray, saboteur of No. 1 Rafa Nadal in the semis. Andy was in the final for a few minutes when he broke the Federer serve in the third game of the second set, and stayed even to 5-5.
But then Federer fell on the 21-year-old Scotsman like the Bridge over the River Doon, and once again Englishman Fred Perry probably grumbled in his grave. Perry, the last Brit to win majors, Wimbledon and the US, in 1936, hoped he’d have a successor. But no dice yet again.
New world’s to conquer for Roger? Yes, now he’s chasing three guys. One is the Spanish thief, Rafa Nadal, who stole his No. 1 diadem. Another who decided to take early retirement, Californian Pete Sampras, dangles his record 14 singles majors above Roger’s 13. And the the third, no longer with us, Philadelphian Big Bill Tilden, won a record six successive US crowns, 1920 – 25.
Roger admitted that the loss of the epic Wimbledon final and No. 1 to Nadal “saddened” him. He said the Olympic gold medal in doubles, with Stanislaus Wawrinka, pepped him up before arriving here. Of course doubles sharpens volleying, which more players should realize. His volleying was greatly improved.
Opening the match as he did the semi over Djokovic, Roger went for that delicious T-bone, a winning serve down the middle, and he was off to the races at a high clip, never trailing. He threw himself into forehands that became vicious, and he was quick to advance on the court, pressuring the Scot, who has raised himself to No. 4.
Considering his situation, Murray didn’t do too badly. Because of that interrupting shrew, Tropical Storm Hannah, he had to play three straight days, two against Nadal before being thrown to a well-rested wolf.
It was the kid’s initial major final, surrounded by 23,763 folk’s mostly in the wolf’s corner.
But this was Federer, the artist as well as the hungry wolf. Roger ran the scales, all 88 keys in showing off fortissimo and pianissimo, maddening spins and thundering knockout punches. Maybe Federer did the British press corps of a couple dozen a favor though a losing story – assuring them of making early deadlines.
I should have heeded one of my muses, the astute Jack Kramer, champion in 1946-47. Jack believes that great male champion peak at around age 30 (Rod Laver’s second Grand Slam was accomplished at 31 in 1969).
Federer is 27, acts eager and feels reprieved to grab one major after being bombed at the French and edged at Wimbledon by Nadal. “Why should I stop at 13 [majors], he laughed joyfully. Bar the doors Sampras. Roger has found that lost step somewhere, pulled his forehand and serve out of a forgotten closet.
No more doubts. For a while. But I have learned that crow is best with red wine.
Tags: New York, Roger Federer, Tennis
September 08 2008 08:39 am | US Open
Martus on 09 Sep 2008 at 5:06 pm #
Bud, you are the best, but never underestimate the heart of a true champion. Murray has Roger’s variety but not as good (yet) and needs to improve his 2nd serve. Federer is one of the greats on and off the court. Impossible to root against him.
Cheers
Richard W on 09 Sep 2008 at 10:02 pm #
Major props to you, Bud, for the plate of crow served as tastily as only you can.
Roger’s a graceful sight on and off the court, but not many scribes are gracious enough to publicly say ‘oops’ as delightfully as you have here. Well done…
Now, it’s only for us to sit back and hope Federer makes it 15 before the clouds of doubt have a chance to form again!
Mayson Brooks on 10 Sep 2008 at 5:51 am #
Greetings Bud,
Congratulations on your new website – the design and ease of use is superb. I also like the pictures, not only of the players but of local points of interest. Photos taken by Anita – yes?
I liked your comments on eating crow over Roger and his 13th major championship (not Grand Slam as you correctly point out to us plebes). I think having Roger continue to accumulate majors with Rafa/others nipping at his heels is very much like Tiger Woods and the trio of other golfers who chase him. Of course, we’re not old enough for golf yet.
I’m a big fan of Federer and think this year and his renewed energy shown at Flushing Meadows will make 2009 another exciting year of tennis.
Hackerly yours, I remain,
Mayson Brooks
Joseph B. Stahl on 13 Sep 2008 at 7:20 pm #
The usual Collins masterpiece of inspiration, wit and charm. My wooden take on it – and Pancho Segura’s – is in the following two E-mails I sent to friends:
Fed ate Murray’s lunch as I said before the match
that he would. Why? Because Roge’ feeds off of flat, honestly hit shots
like Murray’s. So the sad irony is that Jesus died on the cross again
in that encounter. How is that? Because Murray won the tournament for
Federer by removing Nadal from his path only to become martyrized as
the sacrificial victim himself for having done so. No good deed went
unpunished, as the philosophers like to say.
There’s no way Federer could have beaten Captain WiFFLE Ball Nadal, as it is apparent
that all that goofy Spanish spin has had Federer flummoxed for years.
Before the Murray-Nadal semi-, Murray said in an interview that he had
studied Nadal’s game and identified in it weaknesses that he could
exploit, which he did to near perfection by taking Nadal’s serve 10
feet behind the baseline, so that its spin was diminished by the time
it reached him, by playing within the baseline during the rallies,
thereby cutting off Nadal’s shots early so as to rush Nadal by reducing
Nadal’s time to play his shots, and by using combinations of shot
directions that maneuvered Nadal into uncomfortable positions depriving
him of room to swing freely – Murray was often handcuffing Nadal that
way.
You have to give Murray intellectual high marks superior
to Federer’s for figuring all that out and executing it such a high
percentage of the time. (I don’t buy the “Nadal tired” explanation that
the lowing herd of tennis writers has adopted as its sell-a-line
mantra: For two weeks Nadal hadn’t looked the least bit tired beating
everybody else’s brains out mercilessly, and on the last day of his
semi- with Murray he had only played a set and a half the day before,
which is certainly no task for an athlete of Nadal’s calibre.)
Federer surprised me by the ease with which he beat Djokovic, but I remain
convinced that he would not have beaten Nadal, who, in addition to his
other advantages, has had the “Indian sign” over Federer for a good
four years now, and a lopsided winning record over him too.
I spoke with Pancho Segura today and ran the journalistic “Nadal tired” theory past him. He was in New York and saw all the big matches on site, including the Murray-Nadal semi-. Even though he’s 87, Segoo gets pretty cranked up when he’s offended by nonsense. He expostulated as follows:
Segura: “Horseshit! What would he be tired from? He didn’t play one five-set match in the whole
tournament for two-weeks, and he’s only 22 years old and in fantastic
physical shape. Besides, he only played for an hour and a half the day
before he finally lost to Murray. Murray just beat him, that’s all.
Those writers don’t know what the fuck they [sic] talking about. ”
I was glad to see that Segoo agreed with me.
Owen Kelly on 14 Sep 2008 at 6:13 pm #
Hello Bud & Anita-
I just had to respond to your new website and the great new book ” The History Of Tennis ” by of course Bud Collins. The new website is fantastic and love the pictures, I only wish I can pronouce some of those places that you and Anita went to. The new book is really the bible of tennis. Congratulations
Making my 2009 US Open Prediction now- Roger Federer.
John May on 14 Sep 2008 at 9:57 pm #
Bud, Thanks for so honestly “eating crow” after your picks of Djokjovic and Murray instead on the Swiss Maestro. Do you have any influence on the terrible scheduling at the U.S. Open? CBS exerts way too much control, and the normal Super Saturday followed with the next day final for the men has never been good for the men. I trust Roger is studying his copy of the Nadal/Murray match so he can employ Andy’s tactics against Nadal next year. Before his Swiss tank is empty, I would love to see the classiest guy in tennis beat Nadal in Paris. I look forward to seeing you on ESPN next season. John
amit on 19 Sep 2008 at 3:37 am #
Hi Bud,
Nobody writes off Roger until beaten. I agree he would most likely never beat Nadal on grass or clay but its a totally different ball game on the hard courts. Judge not a champion by his year’s record but by his heart to win through sans his trademark forehand and agile court coverage when it really counts. Roger will win next years Australian Open to catch up with the great sampras.
bud on 11 Oct 2009 at 7:14 pm #
I don’t read Russian, but thank you for writing…..