Tweet
Wake up…to Roger Federer to Andreas Seppi
The other morning I woke up as if on cue at four o'clock out here in nowheresville Sweden. I returned upstairs and ducked into my little office instead of moseying into my room to return to sleep. I knew I couldn't sleep…Roger was scheduled to play at four-thirty. Grigor Dimitrov was finishing off a rather game old guy named Marcos Baghdatis (he's 30).
Roger was chatting rather amiably with chair umpire before the celebratory coin toss as he waited for Andreas Seppi to get off of his butt to attend the meeting at the net. Roger began this match losing the coin toss but ironically, Seppi elected to receive. I didn't make it through the first set though before I went back to hit the hay and to be honest I didn't think that Roger needed me against Andreas Seppi who he had routinely whipped, smashed and treated like a red-haired, left-handed, freckle-faced and unwanted stepchild. Seppi had only won one measly, meaningless set to Federer in those ten pastings. One losey set!
When I woke up it was two sets to one to Seppi. Seppi had won the first two sets and Federer had managed to struggle the third one home. Uh oh…I thought to myself…another Gael Monfils fiasco in the making.
Was Federer up a break in the fourth? I cannot remember. I had to leave and go out to the stable as the three mares were getting a manicure. It's part of my deal here in Sweden…part time stable boy. It gives me a roof over my head and three meals a day but on this occasion it was the horses hooves over my Federer obsession. My tennis obsession. It is only a hobby until it comes to a Roger Federer match. His tennis is so easy on the eyes.
Well the rest is history. I managed to catch interviews of both Federer and Seppi…and I managed to catch a good deal of my good friend Mats Wilander chatting up the horsey-faced Barbara Schett. I hope nobody is offended that I refer to her as horsey-faced…but on the other hand who cares. Can the world possibly be any more stupid?
vcr10s has been piping in from time to time on this one and rather dead on the money too. Federer didn't play well. He played rather lousy as a matter of fact. I only say this based on what we have come to expect from him in terms of Grand Slam performances. But this one was a glimpse into the future and Mats sort of backed me up on this one…he doesn't feel Roger is showing up to the Slams to win anymore. He thinks he has lost that kind of desire…he mentions that he shows up because he loves to hit the tennis ball. Thoughtful comment Mats…he says some things that nobody else thinks of or even dares to say sometimes. My favorite was his reason Swedish tennis has slipped so far…the kids are fat and lazy to say nothing of the socialism upbringing.
Roger Federer played like crap. I didn't say he pussy-footed around but he did play like crap and like vcr10s observed the shot between the legs was rather a typical example on the day. Seppi was returning hard and deep down the middle and Roger seemed to be having a hard time getting out of the way of the ball all day long. So many times this happened…I don't ever recall this happening.
The speed of the courts? They are on the quick side compared to the normal venue for modern tennis sand laden tennis courts. Federer said so earlier in an article. Seppi backed him up and his assessment was the fastest that I have heard. My ears prick up when mentions of court speed are made. Mats Wilander said as much. But he made a rather curious comment…actually he made several. But he said that the fast courts may have favoured Seppi because Roger tends to mishit his forehand and particularly on low "sliding" balls. Roger isn't the only one (the ATP3 forehand may be suspect in this regard in general)…but on this particular day he was having a difficult time with the whole game and he pretty much said so in his interview. He said that he played "passive"…in private he was heard to say that he played like a pussy. Which by one definition is a "weak, cowardly or effeminate man". Personally I think he was being a little hard on himself but I certainly understand his sentiment.
And it's true. But the question is why. Mats said that Roger has different priorities these days. He has four children…just like that. He has a wife. Things have changed. He's a bit older. He doesn't see life or possibly even tennis as he did a couple of years ago. He's maturing and at the same time his body is in decline when it comes to playing professional tennis. But he surely should have prevailed in this match. So what gives?
Perhaps he didn't sleep very well for whatever reason the night before. Lord knows he has a lot of things on his mind. Who knows? But he played as if he hadn't slept very well…it can effect the vision and the concentration. Playing into that hot sun seemed terribly difficult for him. Everything was a struggle for him. He didn't execute his game plan. He couldn't attack behind his serve because he was serving like shit (for Roger Federer) that is. He couldn't make the journey to the net. He couldn't coax the short ball out of his opponent as if he seemed to lacked the strength to do it. Once at the net…he was tentative. He could not maintain pressure on his opponent…rule number one in the Bill Tilden book of tennis tactics.
He was poised to take the fourth set in the tie-breaker and he was up the mini-break early on. But he was serving into the sun…which is terribly hard to do when you haven't slept well. He double faulted when he could have been consolidating his mini break. He could have been changing ends at 4-2 up instead of tied at 3-3. It was a lot of things…it was everything. It was if some little old mob guy came into the locker room and said to him…"this ain't your night Kid". In the end it was a rather lucky pass by Andreas Seppi that got it done. Roger approached the net as aggressively as he had all day. He knifed as good of an approach volley deep into the forehand as he had all day. But Seppi…who was rock solid all day…ran it down and sort of floated it high and deep perfectly down the line and into the corner and it was over. It was all over…except for the crying.
The other morning I woke up as if on cue at four o'clock out here in nowheresville Sweden. I returned upstairs and ducked into my little office instead of moseying into my room to return to sleep. I knew I couldn't sleep…Roger was scheduled to play at four-thirty. Grigor Dimitrov was finishing off a rather game old guy named Marcos Baghdatis (he's 30).
Roger was chatting rather amiably with chair umpire before the celebratory coin toss as he waited for Andreas Seppi to get off of his butt to attend the meeting at the net. Roger began this match losing the coin toss but ironically, Seppi elected to receive. I didn't make it through the first set though before I went back to hit the hay and to be honest I didn't think that Roger needed me against Andreas Seppi who he had routinely whipped, smashed and treated like a red-haired, left-handed, freckle-faced and unwanted stepchild. Seppi had only won one measly, meaningless set to Federer in those ten pastings. One losey set!
When I woke up it was two sets to one to Seppi. Seppi had won the first two sets and Federer had managed to struggle the third one home. Uh oh…I thought to myself…another Gael Monfils fiasco in the making.
Was Federer up a break in the fourth? I cannot remember. I had to leave and go out to the stable as the three mares were getting a manicure. It's part of my deal here in Sweden…part time stable boy. It gives me a roof over my head and three meals a day but on this occasion it was the horses hooves over my Federer obsession. My tennis obsession. It is only a hobby until it comes to a Roger Federer match. His tennis is so easy on the eyes.
Well the rest is history. I managed to catch interviews of both Federer and Seppi…and I managed to catch a good deal of my good friend Mats Wilander chatting up the horsey-faced Barbara Schett. I hope nobody is offended that I refer to her as horsey-faced…but on the other hand who cares. Can the world possibly be any more stupid?
vcr10s has been piping in from time to time on this one and rather dead on the money too. Federer didn't play well. He played rather lousy as a matter of fact. I only say this based on what we have come to expect from him in terms of Grand Slam performances. But this one was a glimpse into the future and Mats sort of backed me up on this one…he doesn't feel Roger is showing up to the Slams to win anymore. He thinks he has lost that kind of desire…he mentions that he shows up because he loves to hit the tennis ball. Thoughtful comment Mats…he says some things that nobody else thinks of or even dares to say sometimes. My favorite was his reason Swedish tennis has slipped so far…the kids are fat and lazy to say nothing of the socialism upbringing.
Roger Federer played like crap. I didn't say he pussy-footed around but he did play like crap and like vcr10s observed the shot between the legs was rather a typical example on the day. Seppi was returning hard and deep down the middle and Roger seemed to be having a hard time getting out of the way of the ball all day long. So many times this happened…I don't ever recall this happening.
The speed of the courts? They are on the quick side compared to the normal venue for modern tennis sand laden tennis courts. Federer said so earlier in an article. Seppi backed him up and his assessment was the fastest that I have heard. My ears prick up when mentions of court speed are made. Mats Wilander said as much. But he made a rather curious comment…actually he made several. But he said that the fast courts may have favoured Seppi because Roger tends to mishit his forehand and particularly on low "sliding" balls. Roger isn't the only one (the ATP3 forehand may be suspect in this regard in general)…but on this particular day he was having a difficult time with the whole game and he pretty much said so in his interview. He said that he played "passive"…in private he was heard to say that he played like a pussy. Which by one definition is a "weak, cowardly or effeminate man". Personally I think he was being a little hard on himself but I certainly understand his sentiment.
And it's true. But the question is why. Mats said that Roger has different priorities these days. He has four children…just like that. He has a wife. Things have changed. He's a bit older. He doesn't see life or possibly even tennis as he did a couple of years ago. He's maturing and at the same time his body is in decline when it comes to playing professional tennis. But he surely should have prevailed in this match. So what gives?
Perhaps he didn't sleep very well for whatever reason the night before. Lord knows he has a lot of things on his mind. Who knows? But he played as if he hadn't slept very well…it can effect the vision and the concentration. Playing into that hot sun seemed terribly difficult for him. Everything was a struggle for him. He didn't execute his game plan. He couldn't attack behind his serve because he was serving like shit (for Roger Federer) that is. He couldn't make the journey to the net. He couldn't coax the short ball out of his opponent as if he seemed to lacked the strength to do it. Once at the net…he was tentative. He could not maintain pressure on his opponent…rule number one in the Bill Tilden book of tennis tactics.
He was poised to take the fourth set in the tie-breaker and he was up the mini-break early on. But he was serving into the sun…which is terribly hard to do when you haven't slept well. He double faulted when he could have been consolidating his mini break. He could have been changing ends at 4-2 up instead of tied at 3-3. It was a lot of things…it was everything. It was if some little old mob guy came into the locker room and said to him…"this ain't your night Kid". In the end it was a rather lucky pass by Andreas Seppi that got it done. Roger approached the net as aggressively as he had all day. He knifed as good of an approach volley deep into the forehand as he had all day. But Seppi…who was rock solid all day…ran it down and sort of floated it high and deep perfectly down the line and into the corner and it was over. It was all over…except for the crying.
Comment