Sacking Roger Federer

So apparently the answer to “Can I write two columns a week once work starts?” is “No.” Sorry for the long delay! At least for now, the plan is one column a week, on Wednesday morning, and maybe a quick word or two over the weekend. Today’s column is a little late relevance-wise, but I think it’s an interesting point, so here it is:

************************

Last Sunday, Roger Federer won the U.S. Open. For the fourth straight time. In straight sets.

Roger Federer is really good at tennis. You know this.

Roger Federer is a lot like Peyton Manning. You might not know this. And the similarities could go a long way toward making Americans care about tennis again.

Peyton Manning, more so than any other quarterback in the NFL, can hit any spot on the football field with pinpoint precision. Roger Federer can do the same on a tennis court. Given enough time, Peyton will be able to put the ball wherever he wants, tearing an opponent’s defense to shreds. Ditto for Roger. Peyton can hold the safety with his eyes, move him wherever he wants, and then throw the other way. Roger can show cross-court until the last minute, right up until his opponent takes the slightest step in that direction, before the ball zooms down the line.

Now, to continue the analogy, if Roger is Peyton, tennis is currently over-populated by the racket-swinging equivalents of Chicago Bears quarterback Rex Grossman. Sexy Rexy has shown flashes of talent. He has a powerful arm. He’s shown he can win games.

But he relies too much on his talent and tries to force impossible throws, leading to mistakes. Then he gets down on himself, gets in his head, and makes even more mistakes. Pretty soon the Bears are blown out in the Super Bowl and Peyton gets to leave the Dan Marino Hall of Fame for Guys Who Couldn’t Win the Big One.

James Blake, meanwhile, is quickly building a resume for that Hall of Fame.

Blake has all the talent in the world, but he quickly gets into the modern tennis equivalent of pissing matches: Who can hit the ball harder back at the other guy. This style of play gets him tired, and when he tries to hit both hard and accurately – difficult to do when not exhausted – he makes mistakes. And mental blocks? The man is 1-10 in five set matches.

Welcome to the modern tennis game of power groundstrokes. It’s sort of like a heavyweight boxing match, powerful guys trading blows, except you don’t have the catharsis of people hitting each other. And when you look at Roger’s record in grand slams, it’s immediately clear that this approach is fatally flawed.

So how do you beat Roger Federer? The same way you beat Peyton Manning. With constant pressure and speed rushes.

In tennis-speak, that means serve-and-volley. Hit big serves and knock Roger off balance. Then come into net to finish the point. Roger might hit a passing shot, but it’s a chance you’ll have to take; giving him another shot just makes it more likely he’ll beat you. And those big serves don’t come easy – shortening the point means you’ll be able to keep up the power serves for longer.

But I don’t want to spend a ton of time on “How to beat Roger.” For one thing, it’s been written. For another, none of you need to know how to beat him, unless someone forwarded my blog’s URL to Andy Roddick.

More important is what someone following that game plan to beat Roger Federer might do for tennis’ popularity in the United States. Renewed competition will save tennis fans like me, who have largely tuned out for about four years now. And while Roger’s fans think it’s quite good enough to watch him dominate, these are like the kids who only had vanilla ice cream going up: Give them more options and they’ll realize what they’ve been missing.

But this sort of a change in the game could also bring tons of new fans to tennis. This is because treating Roger like Peyton will, appropriately enough, make tennis like football.

Rather than long, drawn-out, who-can-hit-harder-fests, you’ll get more serve-return-volley winner. Points will develop quickly, and players will have fewer opportunities to win points; they’ll either make the passing shot or they won’t. This is the kind of fast-paced, high-energy play that Americans crave. Every play is full-speed-ahead, with no room for error.

But, you might say, tennis is all about rallies! First, it’s not. It would be sad if they were gone, though. But rallies aren’t what they used to be; it’s supposed to be two guys moving each other around the court, trying to gain strategic advantage – not two guys hammering the ball at each other.

Those rallies are symptomatic of the insanity that has been Roger Federer vs. everyone else, and winning. Channeling the current power-heavy game into a winning strategy will do more than just knock King Roger off his throne. It will restore a sort of logic to the game, and we’ll see real rallies again, plus more.

Not Quite An Upset for the Ages

Apologies, folks, but today was my first day of work, I moved into my new apartment yesterday, and I have four hours until I have to wake up for a plane. So today won’t be a full column.

********************

Opening week of the college football season is characterized most often by two phenomena: Anticipation of a season-long battle between the best teams of the nation for a shot at BCS bowl berths and the national title, and those traditional powers beating the ever-loving crap out of John Doe State University to get the student body and alums excited for the season.

Less common events during opening week include teams from Division I-AA – now known as FCS, Football Championship Subdivision – whooping on those high-flying national powers. But this is what Appalachian State pulled off against formerly-No. 5 Michigan last Saturday, winning 34-32 in the Big House.

Michigan had entered this season with high hopes for a national title. The Wolverines boast a quartet of potent offensive weapons: Quarterback Chad Henne, running back Mike Hart, left tackle Jake Long, and wide receiver Mario Manningham. While the stellar defense lost more than half its starters to graduation or early entry into the NFL, second-year defensive coordinator Ron English was regarded among the best at his vocation, and was expected to have his unit ready to play.

Michigan was a legit contender. Appalachian State was nobody. This was a huge upset, one of the biggest college football has seen in a long time. But the upset looms larger on paper than it does in real life.

Michigan’s loss, one of a touted program to a virtual unknown, was absurd, unfathomable, laughable. But it was not awe-inspiring, incredible or world-shaking. Upsets are only as good as the matchups that produce them.

Two key factors build potent upset potential: The media hype surrounding a game, and what’s at stake. Consider the 2007 national championship game between Florida and Ohio State. The focus of the college football world was squarely upon that game, the sole remaining contest of the year and the one that would determine the nation’s best team. The national championship, the right to call one’s self the best program in the country, was up for grabs.

Everyone thought Ohio State would win, pundits and laymen alike. When the Gators pulled off the impossible, it became the type of awe-inspiring upset we dream of as sports fans, and Florida was handsomely rewarded for proving us all wrong.

None of us cared about the Michigan-Appalachian State before it happened. Why get riled up for a gimme? And we can’t say a national title was at stake in this contest. While Michigan was capable of putting together the season necessary to compete for that title, the Wolverines were four months of solid football away from realizing that possibility.

The loss is sad for Michigan and its fans, and Appalachian State deserves praise for slaying a giant. But I couldn’t care less about the game these two teams were about to play a week ago, so I can’t care too much about the result now.