The Art and The Passion- Roger Federer

As a staunch lifelong fan of the game of tennis, I’ve had the pleasure to have seen some of the greatest and most memorable athletic performances ever given on a tennis court: Virginia Wade’s Wimbledon victory, Athur Ashe’s victory over Jimmy Connors to become the first male Wimbledon champion of color, the classic Bjorn Borg / John McEnroe match that Borg won for his record fifth straight Wimbledon title, Michael Chang’s improbable French Open championship win, the emergence of the Williams sisters in general (and Serena’s first Grand Slam championship at the U.S. Open in particular), and most of all, Pete Sampras defeating Andre Agassi for his first U.S. Open championship. I remember that one distinctly- a pleasant September summer day that I stayed in so I could watch that match, and the then unknown (to me) Sampras, with my lady friend at the time. I distinctly remember the absolute beat down that Sampras administered to Agassi, who was at the time the game’s marquee mens star. The way Sampras absolutely mopped up the court with Agassi stunned me, and the shots he made while doing it not only stunned the crowd into near silence at that match, it compelled me to turn to my lady friend and say to her, matter of factly: “remember this guy, and remember you heard it from me- we are looking at the greatest player in tennis history.”

When I made that statement to my lady friend (who was herself no great fan of the game), I paused for a moment to consider the gravity of what I had just said- I was dead serious about my statement, I really believed I was seeing the next step in the evolution of the tennis player. What actually surprised me was how correct I was in the decade to follow, how high Sampras ended up raising the level of the game at large. But I also remember thinking to myself in time, “will we see anyone like this anytime in the near future, and if so, who will be the man that eventually surpasses what Sampras has achieved….and when will that man arrive?”

Again, I was, in time, stunned. Not that someone eventually came along to surpass Sampras (such things, are, after all inevitable) , and not even that I didn’t recognize the man when he came along (I didn’t, at all)….but that he came along before Pete was even retired, and himself handed Sampras an epic defeat that I’m sure contributed to Sampras’s decision to retire.

Roger Federer was still only a teenager (19) when he faced Sampras on Centre Court in the round of sixteen at the 2001 Wimbledon championships. Even though Sampras was, by that time, past his prime and limiting his play to the biggest tournaments, he was still the greatest player in the world and could beat anyone at any time. However, he faced, in Federer, an essentially younger version of himself- an opponent with the kind of skill and power that Sampras once had, but with one distinct difference. The young Swiss player displayed a fluidity of movement and economy of energy that I had not seen before- not in Sampras, not in anyone. Agassi had great economy of movement, but no great fluidity to his game. Perrenial clay court champion Gustavo Kuerten had remarkable fluidity to his game, but after three sets, he was usually running on will power. Sampras himself was the epitome of the power game and the pure tennis athlete, and though he had great physical and mental endurance, you could see the effort on his face. He was not the “ice man” player that Bjorn Borg was. 

Federer was very reminiscent of Borg in that respect. One was really hard pressed to tell if, let alone when, he felt pressure or fatigue. And when he defeated Sampras in that five set round of sixteen match, I though to myself that this young Swiss player was going to be someone to reckon with. But I did not think to myself “this is the future greatest player in the game’s history.”

Nine years and 15 grand slam titles later, I am faced with the inescapable conclusion that Roger Federer is the natural and logical “consequence” of Pete Sampras. Most of the aspects of Federer’s game are founded in things that, quite simply, didn’t really exist in the men’s game before Sampras- Pete’s level of power combined with an unusually high rate of accuracy and consistently good movement on all parts of the court. After all, isn’t that accuracy / movement combination just about the only thing that Pete Sampras didn’t have to a great degree? The very thing that so many clay court champions rely on to counter he power game of players like Sampras.

Athletes like Federer (and Sampras, and for that matter, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Lance Armstrong and other legendary multiple champions) always seem to have one thing in abundance that most other pros don’t have: a seemingly superhuman singleminded focus on winning, not merely excelling. Nearly all of these legendary winners will let nothing stand in their way of winning consistently- Sampras battled cramps and nausea to win one of his U.S. Open championships, Jordan played with the flu to help lead the Chicago Bulls to their last NBA title, Armstrong overcame cancer- CANCER- to win seven- SEVEN- straight Tour de France cycling crowns.

This paranormal focus reminds me of a scene from the movie “City Slickers” in which a bemused Billy Crystal asks cowboy Curly (Jack Palance) his secret to happiness. (Palance) merely holds one finger up and states “one thing,” the simple suggestion that a person can find their highest purpose and truest happiness by focusing on one thing to excel at, one thing to center their life around….a singular purpose.

It is that sense of singular purpose that often prompts us to associate our sports heroes with their sport, no matter what else they may accomplish in life outside of their sport (and also other professionals, like actors- try picturing Leonard Nimoy as anything other than Mr. Spock on Star Trek). It is that very thing that makes it inconceivable for us to see Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson doing anything other than play basketball, though they are both successful businessmen. There are a number of sports legends that have had lengthy successful careers outside of acting- Jim Brown (acting), Dan Marino, Terry Bradshaw and Howie Long (sportscasting), Mike Ditka (restaurants), Gale Sayers (computers). The sole exception to this might be O.J. Simpson, whose murder trial all but ensured that his remarkable athletic career and modestly successful acting career would be lost in its wake.

Roger Federer, however, appears to be a different breed. Not merely an intensely focused individual, but an individual that seems to exist almost singularly to do what he does- play tennis at a level not previously thought possible….by anyone. As with Jordan or Magic Johnson, it seems inconceivable to picture Federer doing anything else, ever. But again, there is a difference with Federer. Magic Johnson contracted AIDS and had to retire while in his basketball prime. Michael Jordan’s father was murdered, and Jordan retired from basketball in his prime to pursue a pro baseball career (though he ultimately returned to basketball to win three more championships). Barring those kinds of trauma’s in Federer’s life, he appears to show no sign of slowing down, even a little, let alone stopping, and at the age of 27, could conceivably win several more tennis grand slam titles before talk of retirement even becomes relevant.

One cannot achieve anything near such success in this, or any other endeavor, without holding an all consuming passion for what they do. To do something so consistently well usually involves a degree of time and preparation that ends up making the endeavor not merely a part of one’s life, but the very essence of it. Seemingly endless hours, days, weeks, months, years in solitude spent fine tuning one’s skills, honing one’s craft, drawing only on the power of the imagination to picture oneself in the very situation being trained for. To take a basic sporting event and make it look literally like a form of art, is something most of us can only dream of…..something most of us will never get any closer to than dreaming of. But nonetheless, something that all of us can draw some measure of motivation from. After all, Federer is a relatively plain looking guy. Other than his performance on the tennis court, nothing about him particularly suggests that he is what he indeed is- he isn’t an unusual physical specimen like Usain Bolt, Randy Johnson or Yao Ming. His demeanor and output doesn’t ebb and flow like Agassi and John McEnroe did. He doesn’t rely on psychological prowess to gain the upper hand on his oppenent the way many of the greatest fighters (Ali, etc.) would. Federer is just an ordinary looking guy that happens to be the very best at what he does, and is so consistent at it that he makes it look easy.

After Federer won Wimbledon for his record 15th slam title, Pete Sampras himself declared Federer “the best to ever play the game.” Coming from the man I myself once said was the best to ever play the game, such a statement borders on gospel for me. In 2001 I didn’t think we would see the likes of Sampras again anytime soon. In 2009, I’m not sure we will see the likes of Federer again anytime…..ever.

Advertisement