Seventeen majors is a big deal. 300 weeks at number one is a big deal. Winning all four slams, the Davis Cup, and an Olympic Gold (in doubles) is pretty much all you can do. But it’s not quite everything.
Roger Federer had the ‘GOAT’ tag all sealed up in his heyday. Rafael Nadal was a blip, Novak Djokovic was still a joke – more famous for retiring and impersonating his victors than winning slams – and Pete Sampras had his records ripped apart before they could gather dust.
Tennis is a funny old game; played between lines, between two players, between the ears.
That last part is fascinating. Federer once stated that he had “created a monster” following a loss to Djokovic at the Australian Open in 2008. A monster of expectation, of pressure.
Every time he stepped on a tennis court, he was an overwhelming favourite, with the exception of Nadal on clay. Even still, the young Spaniard played himself as the underdog to the press – and played as the underdog anyway – his youth seeing him scurry past Federer time and again.
Mental scars can’t heal without a remedy; usually, winning. But that’s easier said than done against fellow titans of the game like Djokovic and Nadal.
But there is another way; an almost counterintuitive tactic that works in many skill sports: not giving a shit.
Nick Kyrgios is a master at it. I doubt he has ever let nerves get the better of him, and what an amazing big-match player he is. He has beaten Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic on his maiden attempt with each of them. His weakness is probably not caring enough.
Following knee surgery and six months out of the game, Federer came to Australia as a 35-year-old legend, but not really a serious contender, having failed to play any lead-in tournaments. He hadn’t won a slam in nearly five years, despite numerous finals. He was meant to be a quarter-final attraction, praised for his effortless style and grace, and his brilliant achievements for still going relatively deep in slams.
How powerful not giving a shit can be.
Following wins over Kei Nishikori and Stan Wawrinka, Federer emphasised that he was telling himself to enjoy it – the comeback had already been a success, making the quarter-finals. Relax, man. What a dangerous potion talent and a lack of care can be.
What we witnessed in Australia was enlightenment; a freeing of the shackles, the death of a monster. Federer played with nothing to lose for the first time in decades. For much of his career he played knowing he wouldn’t lose, but once you’re fallible, once you feel mortal, pressure is a hell of an opponent.
His crushing victory over Nadal this week was a glimpse into a rare kind of Federer; experience coupled with the fearlessness associated with youth. A man, finally, completely content with his career, at peace with his place in the game. Perched alone on top.
Tomorrow’s match against Kyrgios will be a match of obscene talent, but little pressure. Both men will play freely for different reasons; one man’s legacy is cemented, the other couldn’t give a rat’s. And that’s what makes them both great to watch.
Federer is at his most dangerous, half-a-step slower, but mentally as free as he has ever been. This match could be an appetiser for a possible Wimbledon or US Open showdown later this year, one that decides majors, that adds to legacies.
express34texas
Guest
Doc, pretty spot on. Tennis is about matchups, and some players matchup poorly against inferior players for whatever reasons. The AO is the perfect example. Nadal leads 3-1 H2H, but Fed leads 5-1 in titles. H2H is pretty much meaningless there. And I think 3 of those 4 matchups were with an old Fed(31yo+, which is old in for tennis). I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal would hold a better H2H at the USO if they met there, but I would be surprised if Nadal had more titles, which he's still down 5-2. Fed's brilliance on clay hurts him in the eyes of many. Even though he has only won the FO once, he's still probably better on clay(by far his worst surface) than Nadal is on his 2nd best surface, whether that's hardcourt or grass. I don't think Fed is too far off from his prime years, but you could definitely tell he lost speed around 28-29 and he's certainly not the same player he used to be, though at times he can look as good as ever, just hard to do that for 6-7 matches in win big tourneys. He looks phenomenal this year when he's on, but he's also lost to Donskoy, who was ranked outside the top 100, and Zverev in Hopman. Nada, Djoker, and Murray all got better as Fed aged. Even being just 29 playing against 24-25yos is a huge difference in tennis. But, he while was still great, he's also been losing to non-top players at slams on occasional over the past several years. Making every SF(usually Finals as well) at slams for 6-7 years straight no longer is happening. It should be an interesting year. Murray did win Dubai, but Fed's the only one of the big 4 playing even reasonably well for their standards.
The Doc
Roar Guru
Nice article Hugh. Interesting as to what changed to cause Federer's improved showing against in the AO final. Maybe it is his new found attitude to the court. It is likely multiple things including not having played Nadal for some time prior to the AO final allowing him to reset the focus on his own game rather than mull over past failings - things he alluded in a post match interview. Yes Nadal has dominated Federer if you look at it purely from a head to head perspective. But looking a little deeper - they have played numerous times on clay with Nadal winning each of the 5 times they have met at the French Open (overall 13-2 on clay). They have met 4 times at AO and Nadal leads 3-1 (overall 9-9 on indoor and outdoor hard court). At wimbledon it is 2-1 Federer. Interestingly, they have never met at the US open - a surface that Roger would have the distinct advantage. Stats are stats but I think the H2H record is skewed given the high number of times they have played on clay (42%) - a surface that clearly favours Nadal. Lets hope the resurgence continues!
Kate Smart
Expert
Nice read, Hugh. Agree Fed's play much more freely and it's great to see. It was great seeing Fed back on top of the winners list of a Slam in Jan. I think one of the things we forget about his rivalry with Nadal though, is that Nadal well and truly has Fed's number. Their head to head is 23/13, Nadal's way. This isn't to say Fed's not the GOAT, but a) it's an interesting stat and b) it's a stat that surprises many. Fed has definitely aged the best of his peers/rivals in terms of career longevity and his careful planning, especially in the last year or two is to thank for this. Fed fans are rightfully excited for things to come!
Adam
Roar Guru
Federer winning the AO was amazing, considering his age. He still has that anazing poise he's always had. But I thibk you're right, he hut much more freely this year over past years where he's seemed so cramped at some stages
Bandy
Roar Guru
To be fair the Roar changed my title, which didn't mention Kyrgios at all. Cues, no, is he playing more freely? I think so.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
Your theory probably has some legs, but I don't think Federer will be taking cues from Kyrgios.
Remo Shankar
Roar Pro
What's really amazing about Federer is that as he approaches 36 years of age, and looking at his form over the last two years at the Slams, his level hasn't dropped all that match. Compared to Nadal, Djokovic and maybe now Murray, who are all 5-6 years younger and who should be at their 'tennis peak', Federer is incredible.
express34texas
Guest
Hugh, you might be on to something. It's definitely more than 'not caring,' or else Kyrgios while still young, should already be a GS champion. He's so talented, athletic, and a huge hitter. His tanking and attitude are very troublesome, though. Djoker's aura is gone. Nadal is always a threat, but he's been in big decline for awhile. Murray looks like barely a top 20 player. Fed winning the AO was so unexpected. He then dominated Paire at Dubai, but then has a bad loss in the next round to Donskoy. However, he's looking awesome again at Indian Wells. Kyrgios can beat anyone, but can he put it altogether to win a big tourney? I guess Fed has a new racquet strengthening his backhand mightily, though losing a little with his forehand. Should be an interesting match.