Sport

Tennis’ superhero losing a little of his powers

— Photo: AP

EARLY SEASON BLUES: The recent failures are a worrying thought for Federer.

Imagine Superman, the stitching of his cape coming undone, tripping as he exits a phone booth, and there you have Roger Federer in 2008. A hero gone very gently amiss. There is no reason to call in the shamans, but certainly cause for slight concern.

With his loss to Andy Murray in Dubai, eyebrows have gone from twitching to raising. On one level, hiccups are part of sport; on another level Federer’s uniqueness was precisely his lack of hiccup.

A player who is a statistical delight is now stalked by some less pleasant numbers. His Dubai loss was his first first-round loss since 2004. His Australian Open defeat was his first loss in a Grand Slam semifinal since 2005. His win-loss record last year, 68-9, was his worst since 2003 (in 2004 it was 74-6, in 2005 it was 81-4, in 2006 it was 92-5). And it is the first time since 2000 that he has sauntered into March without winning a tournament.

Eventually his points would become too many to defend, and here, too, the gap has narrowed. In early March 2007, it was Federer 8210 points, Nadal 4880; now it is Federer 6330, Nadal 5930, Djokovic 5010. For the first time his rivals are close enough for him to hear their footsteps.

But is all this just a clever fiddling with numbers, can we just explain it away as a bad stomach in January, no Open preparation, a flat day against Djokovic, then a 39-day break before a tough first round against Murray in Dubai? Is it, anyway, all just about the Slams, and he’s only slipped at one, Australia, where the slow-motion hardcourt never appealed to him?

No, it cannot be just that, there have been signs, small ones, unmissable ones, like his missing forehand (by 2-3 metres in Dubai, he said). It is the stroke he depends on, to design rallies, and end them, and when it is errant his threat recedes slightly.

Federer is simply not his old self (and maybe he will return to it), but perhaps this was inevitable, for no man could play so artfully, so long. But it is interesting nevertheless, for with genius we want to see how long can they carry on performing almost without blemish, how long before rivals smell not intimidation from him but weakness.

Federer said in Australia that his constant winning had created a monster, but it was a strange gripe in a way for it’s what champions live for.

Last year, he lost twice to Guillermo Canas, twice to David Nalbandian. He won three Slams, but went five sets with Nadal at Wimbledon and saved seemingly a thousand set points in the U.S. Open final against Djokovic. He is still The Man, but not by the same margin. It is hideous this obvious mortality of Federer, and yet captivating.

At his untouchable best he flew, and us with him, and never has one-sided victory been so thrilling. Yet, almost perversely so, we are not completely upset by watching Federer struggle, for we wish to see how he takes the beatings he has always dished out, what he will change (come to the net more, get a coach?), will he panic, become a trifle less decorous in his interviews about others (he was a trifle snippy about Murray later)?

Federer must be intrigued, confused, irritated. And it makes you wonder, do athletes accept that special time has passed, do they admit to themselves they will still win but that game, the almost otherwordly one, that one produced almost on command, the one where feet and eye and hand were in some idyllic marriage, has passed? Probably not. Part of being invincible is still believing you are.

Federer will sweat, it is what champions do. He needs three more Slams to pass Sampras’ 14, needs three more years as the best to pass Sampras’ six consecutive years as No. 1, and suddenly the American, who was in touching distance, seems just a little further away. The Swiss will get the slam record, but he might arrive there limping, his Superman outfit torn.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu