Improving on Perfection Monday, Sep 11 2006 

Aakash (played by Aamir Khan) was merely bragging when he failed to see any faults in himself in the film ‘Dil Chahta Hai’. ‘Perfection ko improve karanaa mushkil hai’ (it’s difficult to improve on perfection), he said. But for Roger Federer, his sphere of activity really seems wholly conquered, perfection achieved. In spite of some milestones remaining to be achieved (winning the French Open, overtaking Pete Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slam titles), Federer’s game has been seen to be as complete as any sportsperson’s game can be. What remains to be achieved in terms of improvement in his game itself, if anything? What exactly does Tony Roche do, as his coach? Provide motivation to keep winning, perhaps.

Above all, what does it really feel like to be invincible, to never have to panic, to have the knowledge at the back of your mind at all times that you will be able to raise your game any time if the going gets tough? In tennis, Bjorn Borg might be able to relate to Federer somewhat. His principal problem, by the time he reached the 1981 Wimbledon final, was a lack of motivation to win. He had won 11 Grand Slam titles by age 25, something even Federer has missed by a long way, and by the time he had retired at age 26, had appeared in 5 other Slam finals on the losing side. 16 Slam finals by age 26, and he appeared at the Australian Open only once. Yes, Borg might be able to relate to Federer. According to Federer himself, Tiger Woods is one of those rare people who also knows how it feels to be invincible. But even he has had a rotten time before the current resurgence.

So where does all this leave men’s tennis? At the mercy of one man (perhaps two, if you count Nadal on clay at present), it isn’t all that interesting to me. I am in awe of Federer’s game, but I am not keen on watching his matches. I like the old-fashioned five-setters and thrilling contests, many of which were thankfully witnessed in the just-concluded US Open. Federer even seemed to have put on a little flab since Wimbledon. Obviously, he is not even getting enough exercise :) . Combined with the fact that less and less people come up to the net these days, men’s tennis is at a duller stage, at least for me, than it has been at any other time in my life (two and a half decades).

Concentration in men’s tennis Thursday, Jun 15 2006 

Through the ’80s and ’90s, I always preferred watching men’s tennis to womens’. Men’s tennis had much more depth, top men players couldn’t just breeze through opening rounds of a major tournament beating their rivals without losing more than two or three games, at most. There were great rivalries among the top men as well. Even the Sampras hegemony over Wimbledon in the ’90s didn’t mean drab, one-way matches. Those wins did not all come easy, and Sampras did not seem totally invulnerable at all times, a quality which added some magic to his wins.

How times have changed! The women’s game has been quite robust for a few years now. First the Williams sisters and Hingis, then the Belgians, then the Russian horde, have together made women’s tennis way less concentrated and much more competitive.

On the other hand, if there was an antitrust authority governing tennis, it would have ordered the breaking up of Roger Federer’s game into its component parts – the return of serve going to one baby Fed, the volleys going to another, the backhand slice to another, and so on :) . I had great hope of a counter-balance in Marat Safin, but sadly, he is extremely erratic and injury-prone. Rafael Nadal’s repeated defeats of Federer on clay are heartening, but this cannot become all that great a rivalry if it is the surface that decides who wins. And then again, one rivalry does not relieve the concentration too much. Hewitt and Roddick have been blown away by Federer and we need more players with class and courage to stand up to the man and make him prove his greatness.