TENNIS LOSES FEDERER HOMAGE TO A GENIUS

By Anura Gunasekera

Roger Federer, the most celebrated Tennis player in history, after an illustrious two-decade career, departs the arena he graced with such virtuosity. Over an improbably long period he dominated in the most star-studded period of professional Tennis, unarguably that which showcased the greatest depth of talent of any era.

Federer concedes his mortality with the same dignity and equanimity, with which he has greeted both victory and defeat, the defining features of his public conduct over the years. It has been a stellar display, definable only in superlatives – even at the risk of sounding mawkish. Ideally, instead of this gradual fade-out, loyal fans would have cherished a more spectacular finale, a dream farewell, but sport is cruelly indifferent, even to its icons.

Like all greats who enforce change on their domain, Federer imposed his writ on his sport. To match his authority, delivered with silken skill , he forced rivals to improvise, restructure, to reach in to unsuspected depths and , in the process, to uplift their own competencies. That the top twenty in the last two decades, Roddick, Nadal, Djockovic, Murray, Wawrinka , Berdych and Hewitt included, became the players that they are, is in large measure due to the excellence and the challenge Federer presented. Had he not been around, his opponents would have been lesser players, lesser men.

In a sport which was subsiding in to constant, tedious contests, amongst a group of lusty base-line hitters with massive forehands and looping double-fisted backhands, Federer re-conjured a vanished finesse; the beauty of all-court shot-making, comprising a captivating mix of serve and volley, mid-court aggression and delicate passing shots, threading invisible gaps with surgical precision, reinforced by dexterous serving and solid back-court play.

Shot-for-shot, in the bread-and-butter armoury of all good Tennis players, through all his playing years Federer was superseded in consistency and power, by most of his close rivals. In an era when 200 kmph serves are a commonality, in terms of speed Federer was unexceptional. One could easily name a dozen players, some of them not even in the top hundred, who would out-gun the maestro on a given day. Yet, in terms of total career aces, Federer is third in the list, not far behind the two giant artillerymen, Isner and Karlovich.

When talking of powerful single-handed backhands, the names that come to mind are Wawrinka, Gasquet and, latterly, Thiem, Tsitsipas and Shapovalov. Federer is not the natural first. Forehands were delivered with greater power and consistency, by Del Potro, Djockovic, Nadal, Berdych, Verdasco and a host of other, lesser players. Amongst the top ten serve-volley specialists of the last three decades, Federer rates an honourable mention, but pundits would not rank him above Cash, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Stitch or even Henman. His return of serve was reliable but rarely exceptional, mostly a neutral shot to ease him in to the point. In that department he will not be rated above Agassi, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic or Hewitt.

Given the superiority of all those players in specific aspects of the game, what enabled Federer’s lengthy dominance over a host of rivals, with individual weapons bigger than anything in his arsenal?

One can talk of Federer’s court coverage, a dance choreographed personally by the master, feathery light on his feet, an exhibition of fluid, balletic grace; the unreadable serve, delivered with identical action, whether down the centre or nicking the side lines; the back-hand down the line, its classic beauty masking the raw power; the topspin, back-hand cross-court flick, from deep in the ad-court, defying the mechanical limitations on shot-making and conjuring angles a double-fisted hitter would envy; the flat, rocketing, off-forehand, delivered at full stretch, described by John McEnroe, a genius of an earlier era, as the “greatest shot in our sport”; the running passes on both wings; the reflex volleys from mid-court and the overhead smashes with feet three feet off the ground, the backhand smash and the “tweener”.

Perhaps it was all of these, combined with the freshness that he brought to the game, the elegant all-court artistry, beguilingly creative, its freedom of expression defying the fear of error percentages , confident that the winners would eventually override the errors; a magical shot-making, his racquet a fencer’s foil, probing chinks in the opponent’s armour.

His brilliance is captured by McEnroe, commentating at Wimbledon a few years ago; from his deuce court Federer delivers an explosive backhand return winner, against a massive first serve, the ball nicking the side- line of the opponent’s service box, and McEnroe declaims in awed tones, “that shot does not exist, It Does Not Exist !!!” Federer made the impossible look both casual and natural, persuading the spectator that genius was a universally attainable goal.

Yet, this audacity , with minimal margin for error, was constantly shadowed by the likelihood of failure, particularly against more conservative opponents. Some of Federer’s significant losses are attributable to the high-risk nature of his game. But it was also his vulnerability, which enthralled and kept the audience on edge, all the time.

Federer had no formula, unlike the more calculating Djockovic , who relied on the metronomic precision of repetitive shot-making , with minimal variation from the first to the last stroke, even in a forty-shot rally; or Nadal, the man who troubled Federer the most, shackling opponents with relentless, top-spin, baseline bludgeoning ; or the choleric, unhappy, Murray, scrambling from side-to-side like a terrier, constantly at war with himself, his impregnable defence more effective than his attack. In stark contrast to all his peers, Federer in full flow was a joyous exhibition of spontaneity and improvisation.

Federer’s genius was summed up best by a great of a different era, Jimmy Connors, who once said, “in an era of specialists you are either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist, a hard court specialist…..or you are Roger Federer “.

How does one define greatness in sport? Statistics, of course, are a prime consideration. Federer has 20 Major Singles titles in his cupboard, surpassed recently by both Nadal and Djokovic. He has figured in some of the most scintillating duels in the history of Tennis, most of which he has won. The only warp in a glittering tapestry is his record against Nadal who, as the Aussies would say, had the “wood on him”. But that too has to be viewed in context. In 40 encounters, of the 24-16 tally in Nadal’s favour, 14 of Federer’s losses are on clay, a surface on which Nadal, unarguably, has no peer. On the faster surfaces Federer leads, 19-11.

Federer’s supremacy fostered magnificent rivalries which enriched tennis of his period, in a manner not seen in any previous era. Apart from Nadal, against Djokovic it is 27-23 in favour of the Serb with the rigidly structured game, 23-3 against Wawrinka, 14-11 against Murray and 17-6 against Berdych. Against Roddick, who himself said that given Federer’s 21-3 dominance that there was no rivalry , 18-9 against Hewitt and 15-5 against the giant Del Potro; reaching further back when Federer was yet to cement his superiority, it is 11-8 against both Safin and Nalbandian and 8-3 with Agassi .

Federer’s supreme individualism does not leave a legacy for new entrants to inherit. Rigidly structured playing styles, which regularly produce thousands of clones in tennis courts the world over, are based on predetermined formulae, supported by proven results and easily passed on from coach or academy to aspiring players. In the universal context of production-line tennis, Federer’s talent was a radiant aberration. Out on the court Federer wrote a script birthed in his own psyche.

What of Roger Federer , the man? Great athletes tend to be viewed only in the context of the discipline that they dominate. Similarly, Federer the man is largely obscured by Federer the tennis player, with his involvement in and contribution to worthy causes rarely reaching the public eye. There is the Roger Federer Foundation for disadvantaged children, totally funded by him, and its affiliation with the South Africa – Swiss Charity, IMBEWU, to assist disadvantaged African children in sports, social and health awareness. In addition there is the leadership he has provided, through numerous sporting events, to generate funds for disaster victims all over the world. Federer, clearly, is a rare synthesis of sporting greatness and civic goodness.

Federer is also the only athlete of the Open era, to combine an obviously busy family life with that of being a world top five player. In an unrelentingly demanding sport, which precludes distractions outside the game, Federer is clearly a dedicated family man at the head of a large and loving family. This sense of proportion and balance, the awareness of the transient nature of supremacy in a sport, and the active contribution to a greater calling outside that dominance, invests Federer’s persona with a completeness, that no other great of the game has demonstrated in his playing days.

The “Greatest of All Time” (GOAT) debate needs mention, even briefly, in any dialogue involving Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. The Serb, with his growing collection of majors, may finally be defined, statistically, as the best craftsman of all time whilst the Spaniard, with his tenacity and physicality, is already spoken of as the toughest opponent of the Open era. However, greatness embraces multiple dimensions. For instance, It cannot admit the international embarrassment that Djokovic is, today. Greatness is a composite of longevity and successful outcomes, reinforced by visual beauty, lethalness of delivery, impeccable conduct, charisma, and the respect accorded by society. It is as much about style and manner of execution, and influence outside the sport, as it is about win-loss statistics.

Federer’s on-court conduct was invariably civil and understated, untainted by the often embarrassingly theatrical bellicosity and provocative histrionics of some of the other stars. That timeless grace extended beyond the court and inhabited his public persona as well. He is still the superstar of Tennis, continuing to transcend the sport despite the decline of his on-court dominance. In the Open Era, no other player has impacted the game as beneficially, as Federer has done. The retirement of no other tennis player has evoked such universal regret, acclaim and tributes, especially from former opponents and fellow contestants. Given all those elements, Federer, the supreme aristocrat of Tennis, wins the GOAT contest, hands down. Federer was the greatest, in a time of greats.

Federer’s career was akin to a glowing comet traversing the Tennis galaxy. Sadly, whilst other galactic wayfarers return at predictable intervals, this is one stellar being who is destined to disappear in to the sun. There will be no heir because he leaves behind no mould for recasting. What a bereaved Tennis world is left with is an enduring legacy of displays of genius, of consummate artistry, unique to the man. The statistics of his dominance will always be available for analysis but the elegance, the grace, and the unimpeachable conduct, both on and off the court, must remain enshrined in collective memory, particularly for those fortunate enough to have witnessed the peerless athlete in his prime.