European Vacation

Everyone's been raving about Roger Federer, and I don't know why. The problem, really, is a lack of cable television so I can watch tennis all the time. I've only seen Federer play a few times, and so I couldn't quite appreciate how good he was. Today, I watched Federer play Hewitt in the US Open men's semifinals. This was an eye-opening experience.

Hewitt used to be the number one player in the world. He's like Connors in that he's a dogged competitor. He tends to be emotional for a tennis player, and psychs himself up to play, much as Connors did. Hewitt is similar in style to Michael Chang. He's quick, he can hit lots of groundstrokes, he returns well.

But, in many ways, he's better than Chang. Although Chang is arguably quicker than Hewitt, at least, back in his prime, Hewitt has better groundstrokes. Chang, for all his ability to run, would routinely hit his groundies short. His shots often fell just past the service line. A good hitter could clock the ball, and force Chang to have to scramble. I kept yelling at Chang to hit his groundies deeper. I suspect he could have won more if he could do that.

Well, Hewitt does that. In fact, it's frightening how deep he hits. He often hits a few feet from the baseline.

Hewitt wasn't much competition for Federer, and this is even as dogged a competitor as Hewitt is. Hewitt has one weakness similar to Chang. He's not a great server. If he had a more powerful serve, he might challenge Federer more often than he does.

Which brings me to Federer. Federer is often compared to Sampras, but there are differences. Sampras, comparatively, serves better than Federer. One reason that I couldn't stand Sampras was that he could ace at will. He could toss in a dozen aces a game. This meant, he didn't have to work nearly as hard as, say, Agassi, who has to work for every point.

Federer is much more watchable for a bunch of reasons. I had thought he was a great server. Federer is OK. Better than Hewitt, but not super fantastic. If you look at who has served the most aces, Agassi is number 2. Ginepri is number 1. Federer is number 5. Now, in reality, that's not such a fair comparison. Both Agassi and Ginepri have been playing lots of five setters. You simply expect more aces the more sets you play. Given that, Federer and Agassi probably average the same number of aces per set (though even that can be unfair, esp. if Federer plays more lopsided matches).

Federer has served 58 aces. He's averaging just under 10 aces a match. That's pretty good, but it's still about one ace a game, where four points have to be played. This isn't Kevin Curren who could crank 20 or 30 aces a match. And, to put things in perspective, Agassi is acing about that much. Maybe, Federer averages 3 aces a set to 2 aces for Agassi.

And more telling, Federer isn't even in the top 20 in terms of fastest serves. In fact, neither is Agassi.

If you watch Federer, what you see is his ability to look unrushed hitting shots. Hewitt seems like he works awfully hard to hit the shots he does, while Federer looks effortless. Whether it's effortless, well, that's probably not the case. I must say I worry less about Hewitt's ability to hit great shots when needed compared to, say, Chang, but still Federer has so much dazzling diversity. He slices, he comes in to volley. He never seems overwhelming, yet, he is.

With Sampras, you got the feeling that he'd stay steady, steady, steady, then hit a power shot. Sampras was dangerous on the move to his forehand. Agassi would sometimes try to knock him off the court with a wide swiping shot to Sampras's forehand. Sampras would run wide, and knock a shot crosscourt at least as hard. But Sampras's backhand isn't the same as Federer, who can deal with punishment to his backhand.

Repeatedly, Hewitt would attack Federer's backhand, but Federer is awfully solid on that side. It is his weaker side. He can't generate the winners compared to his forehand, but it's also hard to overpower too.

I don't know if Agassi can match up to Federer really. He doesn't move as well as Hewitt. If Agassi does one thing better, it may be he serves better. Playing Hewitt has to be great practice for Federer. Agassi plays a lot like Hewitt. Agassi might be able to hit harder, but he has to make sure he doesn't miss. Federer is awfully steady though. He can hit 25 shot rallies, which he did several times. Sampras was not nearly this steady, but then he could go for winners earlier on.

Watching Federer, I don't see him as someone overpowering, like, say, Lendl in his prime, or Graf or Seles in theirs. Yet, he's hard to overpower, and can often hit that one very good shot that wins the point. And he does it so smoothly. It's no wonder so many people like his play.

I then watched the women's final. I was actually blogging throughout. Mary Pierce is both amazing and amazingly bad. She clearly hits quite hard, and she can consistently paint the line, just not consistently as Clijsters. As hard as Mary hits, Kim is such a dogged fetcher. She keeps getting shots back and getting them back.

Much as Mary self-destructed against Henin-Hardenne at the French, she did so with Clijsters, yet I felt she played a better match here. She was more patient, and was able to hit more shots on the court. The problem is something like this. Against Henin-Hardenne, Pierce might miss after 5 shots. Here, she misses after ten. She's steadier, just not steady enough.

Look at Mary Pierce if you want to see the difference between men and women. In the women's game, Pierce hits harder than almost every woman. Only a handful of women can keep up with her pace. A steady hitter has no chance against Mary, because she can just outhit them.

On the other hand, there's no male equivalent. All guys hit pretty hard. But what they also have is a level of consistency. Look at Hewitt. He can hit the ball and hit the ball and hit the ball. Women used to be able to do this, like Chris Evert and Tracy Austin and even Steffi Graf and Monica Seles. This is the ultimate rap on players like Pierce. She hits as hard as anyone, but lacks the consistency to keep the ball in play for long periods of time.

Both women were quite gracious at the end. Although Pierce played subpar, she didn't apologize for her play. Clijsters really was playing at the top of her game, and it's debatable whether Pierce can really play at that level, with any kind of consistency. She'll always contend if she plays like she does now, but she'll always be vulnerable too. Clijsters, to her credit, said she looked up to players like Mary when she was growing up, and admired her for her ability to play so well at the age of 30.

It's hard to believe that Mary has played so long. She and Capriati would alternate who would make the comeback. Each would play well for a while, then disappear. At this point, Pierce appears to have lasted longer, even though she used to have problems beating Capriati earlier in both their careers.

Congratulations to Kim for winning her first Grand Slam event. Although Federer is likely to rout Agassi, I'm hoping Agassi can put together the match of his life. Lately, he's had real problems getting to the finals. And, given his head-to-head record with Federer (a lot like his record with Sampras) and his age, it's going to be really, really tough. Still, Agassi has become a lot smarter player than his early days.

We'll see how it goes.

Ah, it's 9/11/2005. It's been four years since that day. Let's hope we never see its like again.