Two Sundays ago, Roger Federer's much-awaited win at French Open was a bit of an epiphany in a couple of ways. It served to demonstrate the unifying force that tennis on television has become, in our family; everyone had been glued to the set, eagerly willing on King Roger. I suppose this could be put down to the major events coming along only once in a while, keeping the sport fresh in our collective consciousness, without overkill. And, since it is largely an individual affair, personalities are illuminated all the more in a way they aren't in most team sports.
I was also overpowered by the way Fed had captured everyone's imagination. Has there ever been a more popular champion of our times? When I think of the major sporting heroes over the last decade or so - Michael Jordan, the Williams sisters, Tiger Woods, the Australian cricket team, Michael Schumacher - celebrated they may be, but they've tended to polarise people. The kind of feeling Federer has inspired in us is miles away from the cloying hero-worship one might associate with an Indian cricketer or an actor. Among the onlookers, there were a few who suggested that despite this incredible feat of conquering clay, his bogey surface, the one tag which will always accompany the victory is the absence of his nemesis - Rafael Nadal. But to claim that this triumph is a tainted one is rather unreasonable. Can we really attribute Steffi Graf's domination in the mid-90s to the stabbing of Monica Seles, or indeed the rise of the Williamses to Martina Hingis' injuries and personal problems? Let's just take the best these players have given us, shall we? The history books don't lie.
In a post on my Cricket Blog, I examined the nature of our attitudes toward underdogs and theorised that most of us (Indian fans, anyway) would willingly support an underdog who exudes spirit and gallantry, but not so much one given to stagefright or mental weakness. In tennis terms, I suppose it might explain why a Pat Rafter's Wimbledon near-misses are remembered with much fondness, while a Tim Henman is left to our afterthoughts. But, there is another kind of "underdog" we willingly give our hearts to; the the oldie who is a shadow of his past, yet battles the odds in attempting to do it one last time. Every Indian fan will fondly remember Steve Waugh's final rearguard innings of 80 at the SCG, even though India couldn't force the win. Tennis has thrown up many such examples - Ken Rosewall, trying in vain to win that elusive Wimbledon title as a 42-year old, and the returning Steffi Graf putting Martina Hingis in her place during the French Open final in 1999 for one last title.
Although he is far from finished, I have a suspicion that Federer's Paris sojourn inspired similar emotions. People feared that he might be over the hill, and I personally wondered whether those five setters against Haas and Del Potro might not have drained him both physically and mentally. I vividly recall the case of Pete Sampras in the 1996 French Open, when three five-setters against the likes of Sergei Bruguera, Todd Martin and Jim Courier had taken so much out of him that the eventual winner Kafelnikov swept him aside in the semis. Not so with Fed in 2009, but all along, supporters were just that little bit scared for him. As it turned out, he adapted beautifully, using his serve and often exploiting his opponents' relative weakness at the net to good effect.
Federer's chance to move to fifteen Grand Slam titles adds a compelling edge to this year's Wimbledon (Nadal fans are having it real bad at the moment, aren't they?). It will be particularly interesting to see the challenge posed by Andy Murray - perhaps the Kevin Pietersen of tennis - who is widely tipped to be the main threat to a record-breaker. In the meantime, I'll remember the French 2009 not so much for all the history-making, but for Fed's ability to have enthralled us all collectively. It was no mean feat.
Current Music: Patrick O'Hearn - Homeward Bound
No comments:
Post a Comment