The Hindu : Sport : Building the perfect beast

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 25, 2006
ePaper

Sport

Sport

Building the perfect beast

Rohit Brijnath, with inputs from Ramesh Krishnan and Nirmal Shekar, attempts to construct the perfect player to beat Roger Federer.

— PHOTO: AP

AN UNSOLVABLE RIDDLE: Federer's dominance makes the tour look like the Seven Dwarfs against the Incredible Hulk.

In Sunday's Madrid Masters final, against Fernando Gonzales, who is world No.10 if you please, Roger Federer won his 17th 6-0 set of the year. In 1994, when Sampras won 10 titles, he had four 6-0 sets.

A 6-0 score suggests no contest, which is what the tennis tour has turned into. Nadal got us all excited for the second straight summer only to wilt in the hard court autumn. Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Blake, Ljubicic are hard to get excited about. This is the Incredible Hulk against the Seven Dwarfs.

Since Federer has no peer, we must build one. Reality has become so one-sided that we have to resort to fiction. In the time of the ridiculous we have to embrace the absurd. And so, by choosing the best strokes from players from 1976-2006, we will construct the perfect player to tame the Swiss.

To get another view, I asked this newspaper's learned tennis writer Nirmal Shekar and former Wimbledon quarterfinalist Ramesh Krishnan to submit their own lists of what comprises the perfect player.

Forehand

Nowadays everyone not named Santoro hits a big forehand. Gonzales pelts it, Blake pounds it. But the old guys were no slouches. Sampras's cross-court effort was designed to damage, but it was Lendl's slapped, heavy forehand that still echoes. Federer's forehand is from Rolex: reliable, advanced engineering. And perhaps the man to rival him is Agassi, short backswing, slightly flatter ball to rush the Swiss, a juggler's control and unreal timing.

My choice: Agassi. Ramesh Krishnan: Lendl. Nirmal Shekar: Lendl.

Backhand

Bjorn Borg with his long-handled Donnay was so reliable he'd make passing shots in a wind tunnel. Metronomic Mats was innovative because despite two hands he could do the sharp, one-handed slice. These days Richard Gasquet's backhand is auditioning for the Louvre, but it's a third Swede whose backhand astonished. Stefan Edberg's forehand was fashioned by a drunk mechanic, but his backhand was constructed in God's design studio.

My choice: Edberg. Krishnan: Edberg. Shekar: Edberg

First serve

Stich could gouge the court and Goran terrified linespeople. Yet the most dazzling machinery belonged to Sampras, whose serve was too quick to follow and harder to read than Sanskrit homework. Federer's serve lacks such heft, but he also has terrific disguise. But I'll pick the McEnroe serve, for his outrageously swinging lefty effort would pierce the heart of the Federer backhand.

My choice: McEnroe. Krishnan: Sampras. Shekar: Sampras

Second serve

No contest because only one second serve has been classified as a weapon.

My choice: Sampras. Krishnan: Sampras. Shekar: Sampras

Return of serve

Men like Connors and Hewitt are part brilliant interpreters of serve, part hand-eye freaks. It is also the most under-commented about shot in tennis. McEnroe might go well against Federer, because he'd follow an early-taken ball to the net, which no one does. But we'll play safe and smart and go for old baldy who beat Sampras 14 times and is a returning savant.

My choice: Agassi. Krishnan: Agassi. Shekar: Agassi

Volley

A net-shy generation means one crucial element of Federer's game is insufficiently tested — his passing shot. Would he blink if Stich were guarding the net, or Cash, or the athletic Rafter? Could he get one past the balletic, technically assured Edberg or go into a funk at the sight of a cotton-wool drop volley from McEnroe?

My choice: McEnroe. Krishnan: McEnroe. Shekar: Edberg

Speed

Few notice Federer move, yet he's rarely late to a ball and returns shots whose authors believe are winners. His stroke repertoire means a lot of running for his opponents and no one ran as quick, or as long, as Borg. In modern times, Hewitt chases the ball as if he has a score to settle with it while Chang made a career out of sudden acceleration.

My choice: Chang. Krishnan: Borg. Shekar: Hewitt

Mental toughness

Wilander said modern players fail to get inside Federer's head. The Swiss may be amiable, but Connors would sneer and spit on his shoe. It's hard to recommend a fellow of Connors's manners, but perhaps to rattle Federer we must give up grace, and anyway there was a raw beauty to Connors's late-career raging desperation. But equally unsettling might be Borg the clinician, and perhaps his impassiveness would bother Federer. The Swede's toughness can't be underplayed, for he tamed Connors and McEnroe, boys both bad and skilful.

My choice: Connors. Krishnan: Borg. Shekar: Connors.

Would this perfect player beat Federer? Yes. But at least it'll be a contest.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport