Rosewall, Revisted

In 1974, Ken Rosewall, the great Australian tennis player, reached the finals of the US Open. He was 39 years old, making him the oldest finalist in the Open era (in 1968, the US Amateurs became the US Open, and allowed professionals to play in what had been an amateur-only tournament). Rosewall was clobbered, 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. That year was the closest any man since Rod Laver, in 1969, had won the Grand Slam. Connors failed to win the French Open. Due to his participation in World Team Tennis (?), he was banned from playing the French Open. Who knows if he would have it had he played? Borg would win his first French Open in 1974, beating Spaniard, Manuel Orantes.

Connors was a new breed of player. He was Agassi before Agassi. He hit hard, flat shots, and could overwhelm opponents off the ground. In the days of Rosewall and Laver, serve and volleyers dominated. Even Rosewall, the superb groundstroker that he was, played no one that hit the ball as hard as Connors. Connors won because he powered the ball past opponents. That ability would keep him competitive until he was nearly 40, when he was still one of the top 5 hardest hitters in the game, and perhaps the most gutty competitor in the game.

Last night, Agassi became the second oldest finalist at the US Open, at the age of 35. (Connors made it to the US Open semifinals in 1991, at the age of 39). It was widely assumed that Agassi would lose handily to Federer. Federer has beaten Agassi seven times in a row, prior to last night. Agassi had also played three five-setters in a row, while Federer had yet to be pushed to a fifth set. And Federer has never lost a finals he's been in, as a pro. Never.

Still, Agassi came into the Open playing as well as he ever had. He would have the crowd on his side, and perhaps they could rattle Federer.

And for a while, it looked good for Agassi. He dropped the first set, 6-3, then came back to win the second 6-2, and was up a break 4-2 in the third. Then, Federer turned it up a notch. He broke to reach 4-3, then both held until a tiebreak. Agassi was, in fact, quite in danger of falling back a second break. Only through some tough play did he hold serve. Meanwhile, Federer was starting to crank up to the next level.

Earlier, I had said Federer only had ten aces per match. He hit twenty aces this match. Federer had also drilled Hewitt, 7-0, in the third set tiebreak in the men's semifinals. Given how easily Federer was holding serve, the tiebreak didn't bode well for Agassi. Tiebreaks generally favor the better server, since a good server can often win some easy points. Federer is also more than just a good server. He won the tiebreak 7-1.

At this point, Agassi panicked. This has happened to Agassi before, usually with a guy named Sampras. Federer often gets compared to Sampras. Sampras, while a tough competitor, had a fragile body. He'd often gear his year to playing the major tournaments. He wasn't the iron man, say, a Lendl was, who once won 11 tournaments. Sampras would be lucky to play 11 tournaments a year.

Federer is also dominating when it matters. He has far better groundstrokes than Sampras, and varies his shots a lot more than Sampras, owning slice shots and a decent drop shot. Federer's backhand is also quite good, and his mobility better as well. Sampras is the better server, though last night, you'd have a good argument for Federer being as least as good, with twenty aces to the best (former) returner in the game.

What Federer does better than anyone since Sampras is to win from a seemingly defensive position. You'd drive Sampras wide to his forehand with a hard shot, and he'd hit a winning crosscourt shot back even harder. Federer can do the same, on both his backhand and forehand. Time and again, it would look like Agassi had a shot that should elicit a weak response. Time and again, Federer would pound the ball back for winners.

I had thought Agassi would fare worse than Hewitt, but it was a wash. On the one hand, Hewitt made far fewer mistakes than Agassi. On the other, Agassi could hit winners more easily than Hewitt.

Essentially, Agassi pulled a Mary Pierce in the fourth set. Starting to worry his strategy was failing, Agassi does what he normally does. He tried to hit harder. While Mary Pierce can seem absolutely serene while missing shot after shot, Agassi looks like he has a bathroom break to attend to. He'd fire shot after shot, just long, just wide. Federer stayed patient.

Pretty soon, Agassi is down two breaks and is about to be bageled in the fourth. He ekes out one more game, before Federer has another dominating game serving, and wins 6-1.

In many ways, this match was a copy of the semifinal match. Both Agassi and Hewitt had chances to go up two sets to one. Both of them needed to win a tiebreak. Both got crushed in the tiebreak. With that loss, Federer gained confidence, while Agassi and Hewitt realized their chances were gone.

A player like Roddick ought to be able to hurt Federer with his serve, yet Roddick's groundies aren't even in the same league as Federer. Hewitt and Agassi can often play about even with Federer off the ground, but they lack the serve and volley to hurt him much when they serve. The person that should be able to best deal with Federer is someone like Sampras, who had a very good serve. However, Federer would have the edge off the ground.

If anyone has to be reminded why Federer is so good, it would be illustrative to pay attention to the semifinals and finals of the US Open. Before then, I had been indifferent to Federer's skill, but when he is on, he hits effortlessly. He overpowers you without always hitting outright winners, and at times, he hits winners when you think the other guy should get it.

As announcers must find some stat to make this seemed historic, so the CBS guys did. Federer became the first man since Don Budge to win a double-double. A US Open and Wimbledon win in two consecutive years. Only three men have ever accomplished the feat. Big Bill Tilden, Don Budge, and Roger Federer. It's quite the company to keep. I will say, an even bigger feat, is Borg's back-to-back-to-back French Open/Wimbledon wins from 1978 to 1980. No player has ever been good enough to win on the slowest surface then turn around and win on the fastest three weeks later.

Borg played at a perfect time for him, where he was the dominant clay court player, who had a serve that was just good enough, and returned well, and well, there were no really good serve and volleyers of his day.

That record, I surmise, may never be broken.

But Federer may be the man to do it.