Simon Barnes on Federer in Today's Times

Nice article, worth a read for Fed fans if you can get a copy of the paper or peak behind the firewall.

Barnes is comparing Fed to other great champions - some who give up young (Borg) some after a last hoorah (Sampras), some never (Connors), and saying that Fed's motivation seems to have shifted ever so slightly from desparately wanting to win by playing beautiful tennis to playing beautiful tennis and hoping to win, but living with (relative) failure - beautiful tennis is now the end, having been the means to the end. He suggests that Fed has realised he'll be a long time retired and is unlikely to be able to anything else as well as he can play tennis even now, so he's making sure he can enjoy it whilst it lasts. Barnes also says that the odds of Fed winning another slam or getting to No. 1 again are stacked high against him, but wouldn't it be great if he could defy them - my sentiments too.

Barnes goes on to say something else that I 100% agree with - that because of the way Fed has played the game, and is still playing at times, Fed was, is, and will be the No. 1 in a way that neither Nadal nor Djoko can ever be, even if (when?) either or both of them surpasses his records. Amen to that!

Federer occupied a niche during the period of the sport of tennis when it was transitioning from a serve and volley type game to a more physically attritional type of baseline game with its emphasis on top spin, racquets with larger sweetspots, slower and more consistently playing courts, and increased resting and recovery between points played.

So Federer can be seen as an in-betweener. A very good in-betweener, mind. An in-betweener par excellence.

barrystar wrote:and saying that Fed's motivation seems to have shifted ever so slightly from desparately wanting to win by playing beautiful tennis to playing beautiful tennis and hoping to win, but living with (relative) failure - beautiful tennis is now the end, having been the means to the end. He suggests that Fed has realised he'll be a long time retired and is unlikely to be able to anything else as well as he can play tennis even now, so he's making sure he can enjoy it whilst it lasts

Exactly what I've alluded to and what I admire most about the GOAT. His refusal to become some kind of grinder and lose the variety (i.e. play the percentages all the time) has probably cost him a Slam and well done for sticking to his principles

Given that tennis is constantly evolving many great champions who stay around for any length of time are in-betweeners in that they master the changing conditions prevailing during their period of dominance - so I'd agree with you to that extent. It's easier to look back on a period as the era of " " than it is to see such a pattern in real time because you blend the complexities and ups and downs into a seemless passage in a very human attempt to impose a pattern where perhaps there was not such a clear one at the time (blame the Whigs if you like).

It feels now as though tennis is going to go through a long period of attrition, and you may be right. Personally I hope that the ATP realise that it exacts such a toll on the top players that it's not maintainable, certainly not by giving the likes of Djoko and Nadal the indulgence they need to take it to further extremes; I also hope that fans start to agree with me that it's extremely boring. If my hopes are fulfilled then it may change in the near future, it's bound to change in the medium term, things always do, and then Nadal and Djoko too will take their place in the ranks of 'in-betweener' champions like so many before and so many to follow.

barrystar wrote:Given that tennis is constantly evolving many great champions who stay around for any length of time are in-betweeners in that they master the changing conditions prevailing during their period of dominance - so I'd agree with you to that extent. It's easier to look back on a period as the era of " " than it is to see such a pattern in real time because you blend the complexities and ups and downs into a seemless passage in a very human attempt to impose a pattern where perhaps there was not such a clear one at the time (blame the Whigs if you like)....

I suppose viewed this way each of us is an in-betweener in life - society itself is probably changing as fast as it ever had in the past and probably much faster in terms of technological and employment change. It could be a question of adapt or perish.

Its funny really but Federer is the last of the "old school".

Smaller racquets, classical approach to the game, aggressive, get to the net, take the ball early, etc. Its a credit to him he can make all that work in this "Luxilon" age (that said he uses Luxilon now...well 50%, 50% gut - he had to or get drowned out power-wise).

After he's gone the tennis world is dominated by 100inch+ racquets, slack power strings, 4m behind baseline play. Federer is the true last transitional player from what was (Sampras et al) to what is (Djokovic et al). He'll be remembered for maintaining artistry and success against an onslaught of technology. To his credit he has rejected larger racquets...he did test a whole batch of customised Wilsons (93 inch) but didnt like them..so Dimitrov uses them instead. Actually...Dimitrov may be an extension of Federer in a way but he;s just not as good.

lydian wrote:Its funny really but Federer is the last of the "old school".

It's not funny, it's sad. When he's truly gone I'll still follow tennis, but not with so much enjoyment. I wonder how many others there are like me.

It's not funny, it's sad. When he's truly gone I'll still follow tennis, but not with so much enjoyment.

When he's gone, I hope Goffin lives up to his early expectations, him and Dolgo battling it out at the top would be my favourite scenario

It was a sardonic comment barry for sure. I dont want to see baseline , safe identikit tennis forever either.

Yep, I'm following young Goffin with interest too...he's just gone 1 set all with Levine. There is a certain air about him and style of play that suggests "winner"...but we'll see.

lydian wrote:It was a sardonic comment barry for sure. I dont want to see baseline , safe identikit tennis forever either.

Yep, I'm following young Goffin with interest too...he's just gone 1 set all with Levine. There is a certain air about him and style of play that suggests "winner"...but we'll see.

I know comparisons are odious, but I thought the look on his face when I watched him at RG had echoes of the (outwards) insouciance of the younger Becker.

Now 3-0 up in 3rd set Lydian good to see he can forget going a set down with ease

Yep JM...good to see he carried that through the match too
Agree Barry...there is definitely a confident look about him. I like that he said in an interview that he maintained a positive look towards Tomic who was breaking racquets whilst losing to him. I think this lad is mentally strong built on very strong inner confidence...and perhaps, just perhaps...he has the talent to go along with it. Reminds me of a guy who broke onto the tour around 97-98...

I have to say that as a Federer fan I disliked the article by Simon Barnes.

Federer is still playing and is number 3 in the world. He is still more than capable of beating both Nadal and Djokovic. The time for getting misty eyed about his achievements is when he is retired and not now! I am still more interested in his future as a player than I am in his past...

BarryStar. Thanks for sharing.

barrystar wrote:

lydian wrote:Its funny really but Federer is the last of the "old school".

It's not funny, it's sad. When he's truly gone I'll still follow tennis, but not with so much enjoyment. I wonder how many others there are like me.

Here's one.

And I'd miss enjoying tennis, it's certainly not in my interest to be so switched off by the large scale ping pong version of the game.

Prince Charles is a lucky guy, it's not every day you get to meet someone of Fed's stature http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/06/26/Wimbledon-Wednesday-Diary.aspx