-t"> Integration vs Radicalism:
Much has been said and written about Roger Federer’s style of tennis. It has often been described as an all-court game; one in which the entire universe of tennis shots are utilized in an elegant yet destructive manner. However this simple description ignores the grandness of Federer’s impact on men’s tennis. Federer’s tennis is not merely diverse but more importantly eclectic. He arrived as a professional tennis player when tennis was in a transitionary stage; where tennis play gradually moved further backwards towards what has now become the all-important baseline. It is in this context that Marat Safin, Andre Agassi and Carlos Moya all emerged as worthy rebels of the all-court or serve and volley game. Racquet technology had also evolved and greater control over the ball permitted the new generation of baseliners to command the game despite a limited set of weapons. Federer no doubt saw this transformation; it was inescapable and he adapted his all-court game to the baseline era by focusing on being aggressive from the baseline using the expansive range of weapons that an all-court game afforded. In this sense, Federer introduced a form of baseline tennis founded upon a renewed and revitalized classical tennis. His mastery of the full range of tennis weapons and his prodigious court-craft allowed him to express the refinement of the purist’s tennis while still conforming to the insuperable trends that was moving tennis towards a new era. Federer’s strategy allowed him to capitalize and exploit the limitedness of his conventional baseline colleagues. The exceptional volleys, the use of the slice to produce awkward bounces, the varieties of spin and an almost infinite complex of shots left traditional baseliners helpless and almost childish. This ‘modern purist’ form of tennis is not surprising considering Federer’s deeply held love for the history of tennis and those who have composed it; his style of play is almost an expression of that inspired respect and adoration he holds for the legends of the sport and the contributions they have made. His refusal to play humdrum baseline tennis is a testament to his superior understanding and admiration for those who have preceded him. However despite this eclectic and synthesized form of tennis that seamlessly blended classical and baseline tennis, tennis much like any organism continued to evolve and evolution often randomly sprouts innovations that radically deviate from that which came before it. For contemporary tennis that transformation came in the form of a young Spaniard by the name of Rafael Nadal.
In the early stages of Nadals career, many described him as a clay-court specialist or a defensive baseliner; a player that assiduously and persistently returned the ball back into play despite the forceful aggression of his opponent. His recent victories on grass and hard surfaces however clearly and unequivocally undercut such assessments and he has incrementally demonstrated that there is a greater depth in his choice of tennis style. Nadal’s strategy is essentially a defiant attack on the philosophy of the aggressive baseliner; it is a menacing critique of the inherent risk that underpins the modern offensive baseline game. Nadal has either intentionally or inadvertently discovered a form of tennis that reveals the weakness of the risks inherent in aggressive baseline tennis and he has accomplished this feat by eliciting the errors that spring from a persistent attachment to the dangers that accompany offensive baseline tennis. Nadal has radically demonstrated that a mastery of defensive tennis forces the offensive baseliner to hit low percentage shots that increasingly become risky each time the ball is returned. He compels his opponent to incrementally raise the risk of each stroke until a limit has been reached and an error is produced. This unprecedented defensive capability has allowed him to attack from defensive positions and has therefore broken down the traditional distinction between defensive and offensive tennis. Nadal is therefore not an integrator like Federer but rather a radical innovator that is single-handedly transforming and reinterpreting what ‘great tennis’ means. While Federer may be the purist, Nadal is the iconoclast, the rebel and the dissenter. While Federer looked to the greats of the past and amalgamated all their strengths, Nadal has pursued new paths and it is therefore him and no other that been able dismantle the otherwise perfect tennis of Roger Federer.
The Australian Open Final:
While watching the Australian Open final, I found myself constantly perplexed by the contradiction between the quality of tennis I saw and the score line looking down at me from atop the Rod Laver Arena. For four whole sets I saw Federer play better tennis than Nadal; he hit more winners, he played a more varied and multifarious game than Nadal while Nadal perpetually played a static form of play. Nadal certainly increased the quality of that form of play but never truly altered it whereas Federer constantly attempted to use variety to his advantage; he cunningly used the slice, he served and volleyed, approached the net on several occasions (albeit somewhat indecisively), used the drop-shot, played defensive tennis expertly when appropriate and when the opportunities arrived, used his forehand to aggressively flatten out the shots, increase the balls velocity and gain greater depth and penetration in Nadal’s court and yet Nadal was the final victor. Looking at the final statistics, Federer hit far more winners and even won more points and by the end of the fourth set had won even more games though the score read 4 sets all. One statistic however was a glaring flaw in Federer’s game and it was the number of unforced errors. However these unforced errors were not due to frequent mishitting or an inability to hit low-percentage shots but were grounded in Nadal’s ability to invariably return the ball with interest off numerous shots that would be winners against any other player. With each attempted winner being returned with reasonable depth, Federer was often pushed to raise the stakes and take full advantage of a situation where he felt he was the aggressor and Nadal the defender. It is this approach that signifies the innovativeness that Nadal brings to modern tennis; while Federer’s learned court-craft informed him of his impending victory of the point, Nadal seduces Federer to continuously pursue that line of thought until Federer transgressed beyond the limits of the his position in the rally and hit an unforced error – it is therefore that unrecognized breakdown in the distinction between offence and defence that lured Federer to go for shots that may have been too difficult. However, there is no doubt that despite these unfriendly dynamics for Federer, he could have still won the match had he just won one of the many break-point opportunities that he had earned in the third set or if he had perhaps continued the same intensity in the final set so why didn’t he? The answer lies once again in Nadal’s radical approach; it is Federer’s fear of Nadal’s defences that prevented him from being even reasonably aggressive on many of the opportunities that he held; after all, Federer like many of Nadals opponents fears the offensive capability of Nadal’s defence.
The Greatest Play of All-Time Debate:
Two years ago it was almost set in stone that Federer would retire one day as the greatest tennis player of all time and rarely did anyone dare oppose the possibility that he was anything but invincible on a non-clay surface. Last year however the debate resurfaced with far greater contention. Detractors of Federer drew attention to Federer’s loosing record against Nadal and now that Nadal has once again ousted the great Roger Federer, the mere question of whether he is the greatest player of this decade seems debatable. However I believe that being the greatest player of all time does not require having winning records against all of your rivals but rather it is a player’s endurance as a champion that is most relevant. It was Sampras’s ability to continue to tenaciously seek and win grandslams that is often referred to as the primary reason as to why he can be considered the greatest ever. Likewise Borg, Laver and Lendl have also entered the debate due to that quality. Nadal may certainly appear capable of demonstrating that endurance, however Federer has already done so and until Nadal eclipses him in this respect, the most prestigious designation of greatest ever will be between Federer and Sampras. It must also be noted that Federer appears to be able to defeat all other players most convincingly in grandlsam contexts and so it should be assumed that he will continue to win majors even if he is unable to ever beat Nadal again- it is unlikely that Nadal will reach the finals of every major that Federer does. Moreover what is also relevant to consider is that Nadal is not quite in the second half of his career as Federer is and may yet encounter a player, a young upstart perhaps in the future that may deprive him of grandlams. Beyond the factors of grandslam victories and future prospects, it must also be recognized that Federer is a player that has mastered every aspect of tennis, unlike Nadal, and this too must be given some weight. Ultimately Nadal’s legacy is still incomplete while Federer has already established his legacy regardless of future victories and in this legacy there rests an unrivalled mastery of tennis that deserves until it is surpassed the label of ‘greatest ever’.
Some Extra Thoughts on Federer, Nadal and Future Prospects:
Nadals radicalism and innovativeness has allowed him to conquer the ‘perfect’ tennis of Roger Federer but the evolution of tennis does not stop with the great Rafael Nadal and similarly to the market, innovations are often imitated and even improved upon and recast in different formats. Andy Murray’s ability to sustain Nadals defensive positions while utilizing the all-court weaponry of Federer is to me the next stage in tennis. In this sense,
