The Great Roger Federer Debate: 2008 by JA Allen

October 2, 2008

It simply doesn’t matter whether your argument begins or ends with concepts of slumps, mono, age, momentum, motivation, bad luck or even Nadal, Djokovic and Murray…the fact is that somehow and miraculously the field in men’s tennis caught up to Federer. But it took them almost five years.

No one man has held tennis center stage alone for so long during the modern era. True—Nadal held his own on clay. Had Nadal not been a factor—the tennis legend of Federer would be irrefutable—untouchable by anyone using today’s standards. Federer single-handedly dictated the tennis landscape until 2008.

If you remove your blinders of expectation, you must admit that even the 2008 Federer campaign has been fairly remarkable. Most players would give anything to have the year Federer has had so far.

However, we are not accustomed to thinking of Federer as “any other player.” We force him to live up to the standards he set for himself and the rest of the tennis world.

Roger shaped the game as it now exists. Players aiming for the top spot had to be able to beat Federer. Most couldn’t and most didn’t. Nadal, after three years of chasing, found a way to adapt his clay game to grass.

His aggression, his improved serve, his spin, his never-say-die attitude on every point has had Federer backed into the proverbial corner on many occasions—but most often on clay. Nadal would never have exerted such effort to perfect his competent game had he not been fast on Federer’s heels.

Those of you who expect Federer to return to the game he seems to have left behind will be disappointed because there is no going back—only forward. Federer will never be the player he was because even he cannot reach back and grab perfection again.

The game has changed because of him and now even he must adapt. The question many of you seem to ask is “Can he?”

The answer is a resounding "of course he can." There is no one playing tennis today with as many gifts as the talented Mr. Federer. He still has the complete package at his fingertips.

He can serve, return, improvise, move, adapt, volley, slice, and pick apart the opposition with skill and artistry. When Federer is on, when his prowess peaks, superlatives seem inadequate.

Just as earlier in his career, he had this arsenal at his disposal—he has retained these considerable tools. What he needs to figure out now is how to use them to his best advantage, considering the rest of the field.

What routinely worked for him in 2006 or even 2007 may not be what works best in 2009—and by that, I mean what it takes to win.

That is what a great champion does—he figures out how to win using his strengths and capitalizing on his opponent’s weaknesses.

This is never a static process. For a while, Roger made it look like everyone else was standing still. But now we realize that was not the case.

Nothing remains the same, and everyone must move forward or fade away…

Roger will reinvent his game for the future. Does he need a coach? Yes—just another pair of eyes to analyze the game and provide another perspective; but it must be someone Roger trusts implicitly.

Roger fought intrepidly throughout 2008, refusing to quit, refusing to take refuge in excuses, forcing himself to move forward positively toward the next summit.

He put on a show of promise, of hope, of optimism that culminated in Olympic Gold, the U.S. Open Championship and a meaningful Davis Cup victory.

He has earned respite, a reprieve from the circuit. Roger and his team need time to evaluate and to reassess going forward.

2009 will be the culmination of his career, as he reclaims his No. 1 ranking and as he surpasses Sampras’ total of 14 Grand Slam championships. 2008 will be remembered not as a defining moment, but as a transition to further future glory…

Tennis Coverage: on Demand? by JA Allen

October 2, 2008

It is fall so tennis fans huddle waiting patiently in Neverland.

We yearn to witness sensational tennis shots ricochet off the rackets of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. But any match will do. Maybe racket magic will reappear shortly in Madrid—if only we could watch.

ATP Tennis is scheduled 11 months a year, covering over 65 tournaments. In the U.S., if we are lucky, we might get to see the four Grand Slams and maybe a couple of Masters Events on U.S. television networks. This represents a tiny portion of all the ATP tennis being played and, speaking for all tennis lovers here in the U.S., we are sick of it!

We demand more live coverage, even if it is via computer through live streaming. We have remained in the dark long enough. If poker can be broadcast as an athletic event on ESPN, then tennis deserves it, too.

We realize that most U.S. sports fans consider tennis a rather prissy sport for snobs. In other words, they would bet money that Roger Federer could not match moves with Adrian Peterson, or that he could not hang with Kobe or LeBron. Or that the Swiss master is clinical and competent with a racket in his hand but is not a real athlete.

These same individuals will feel a bit better about Rafael Nadal because he at least sweats buckets. U.S. sports fans need beer, bean dip, burritos, bouts of swearing, and even barfing at sporting events at the professional level.

Deep down they suspect tennis is not a real sport—sort of like golf—except that because they play it, they tolerate golf and more specifically admire Tiger Woods.

Tennis will never find tenure in the hearts and souls of most U.S. sports fans—not now or anytime in the future, because tennis is not integral to the typical American sports psyche.

The un-silent majority fail to appreciate a sport where the umpire tells you to sit down and shut up—all very gently, of course.

It also doesn’t help that currently men's tennis is ruled by Europeans.

We have a couple of American men in the top 10—Andy Roddick and James Blake. But Americans don’t rule the sport and haven’t really since Sampras hung up his racket in 2002, although Roddick enjoyed the No. 1 ranking for a brief time at the end of 2003. When Pete won his last major in 2002, he was not ranked in the top 10.

Unfortunately for tennis fans living in the States, as far as U.S. television networks are concerned, if there are no Americans playing we will not be airing…at least not in the early rounds. We remain blocked at the source.

For tennis fans the epitome of this obfuscation occurred on June 16, 2008 when Bill Simmons, The Sports Guy, published an article in ESPN the Magazine entitled Wimbledon? I wouldn't miss it. And I don't mean that in a good way.

Tennis aficionados were appalled and perplexed by the attack. The article appeared prior to the epic Wimbledon championship match in July of 2008 between Roger Federer and Raphael Nadal—a five-set, five-hour masterpiece that Nadal won 9-7 in the final set. The players endured rain delays and darkness in a roller coaster match of considerable quality.

Tellingly the championship finale generated a seismic sensation swelling to a perfect 10 in the press. Simmons was roasted by his critics who pointed out that Wimbledon deserved attention and that tennis was relevant. For a short time afterward interest in tennis stirred within U.S. boundaries like leaves buoyed on a brief north wind.

Now the leaves are dropping, soon to be trampled underfoot as U.S. sports fans settle comfortably in front of mammoth HD screens supplemented with surround sound to watch college and professional football, the conclusion of Major League Baseball, all the while anticipating the onset of basketball and hockey of all levels, flavors, and genders.

For now, tennis has faded far into the recesses of the U.S. subconscious, perhaps to be revived at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open in 2009—maybe.

Tennis as a spectator sport and, more particularly one that can draw a respectable television audience in a U.S. market, has less appeal than reruns of the 2004 Bush-Kerry Debates, according to the networks.

People in this country don’t follow tennis because they don’t play tennis. Their sons, grandsons, nieces, nephews, cousins—no relative they know plays tennis, nor do any of their friends or acquaintances, with few exceptions.

As you travel through rural U.S.A. and you stop in typical county seat community, you will see many homes with a basketball hoop fixed over the garage door. You will see parks with baseball, softball, and even some recently converted soccer fields. At the high school, you will find a large football field tucked neatly within an all-weather track.

But rarely will you find a tennis court. If you do, it may well be cement with weeds growing between the cracks, often with no net or a severely dilapidated one. Tennis is not part of the sporting landscape in most U.S. communities.

People in this country love sports. We love to talk about them, poll them, and fantasize about them. We have more barfly analysts and Monday morning quarterbacks than ever. We know our football—about the value of an I-formation or a spread offense or why we would want to employ an on-side kick.

We also recognize a full-court press and a zone defense in basketball. We can articulate the need for a squeeze play in baseball. But just ask anyone—even those who should know—how ranking points are awarded in professional tennis, and then you will understand why tennis will never sell in major markets in the U.S.

But instead of decrying the absence of a huge market—here’s a thought! Appease the market you have and make it grow by giving us what we want! There are thousands of people who wish to watch tennis, who recognize and applaud the amazing athletes who populate the sport, who know tennis is at the apex of arduous athletic competition.

Currently we are forced often to follow matches in progress with nothing more than blinking scores on computer screens. We don’t mind digital media. We will watch matches on our computer screens as long as the image is fixed and large enough to see.

Has a tennis fan no rights at all? Is it fair that we should be denied access to the sport we love? It is complex, but it all boils down to supply and demand. We demand more tennis coverage, so someone please supply it!

Deconstruction a Roger Federer Fan...by JA Allen

September 28, 2008

Back in the days when we wrestled ice cubes from funny metal trays stacked precariously in refrigerator freezers and Microsoft Windows was just a gleam in the eye of Bill Gates—Bjorn Borg walked away from tennis, taking with him his wanton white shorts, his cat-like prowling along the baseline and his amazing game.

He vanished. Living in my provincial hometown in rural USA, there was no information about Borg—he disappeared into a media black hole after the 1981 U.S. Open.

Sounding sublimely sinister, rumors surfaced about a threat on his life. More than likely, after failing to capture his sixth Wimbledon championship and after losing his fourth US Open final, Borg had enough…

As a huge Borg fan, I was numb with loss. No blogs, no fan sites, no websites existed, and no news surfaced—therefore no communal commiseration.

Not another tennis fan lived within 50 miles, let alone one who worshiped at the altar of the adroit and unendingly appealing Borg.

For a long time, I actually hated John McEnroe because I blamed him for driving Borg away from tennis and into oblivion…

In the absence of Borg, and after a brief panicky hiatus, I found myself leaning toward another Swede, Mats Wilander—who won the French Open at age 17 in 1982.

With long blond hair—and what self-respecting, tennis-playing Swede didn’t sport such tresses—Mats wasn’t rock-star magnetic like Borg but he was cute and terrier-tough—a real fighter. His tenacious game soon diluted my sorrow, and I could freely love again.

After six years of gut-wrenching, grueling tennis, Wilander became the No. 1 player in the world in 1988. Then, he too, blinked out like a bad bulb…probably burnt out from the extreme effort involved in securing the No. 1 ranking. Another sinkhole swallowed my second tennis phenom.

Understandably, I had to spurn Stefan Edberg, afraid to love a Swede again… My tennis tank stuck on empty.

Eventually I found myself living the life of a sub-species—a slug, because I could only root against Ivan Lendl. Out of deep-set desperation and lingering depression, I had deteriorated into an anti-Lendl fan. There was no passion, no thrill—just retribution.

Somehow it was less fulfilling because a tennis fan’s true joy comes from positive emotions like winning. Also Lendl didn’t lose that often…

I tried to move on, flirting with the Aussies: first Cash, then Rafter. I was quite fond of Rafter’s aggressive serve and volley game. Becker was intriguing and Edberg—well, I explained about Edberg.

I have to confess that Americans have never held much appeal. It started with the abrasive duo of Connors and McEnroe. When I imagined interacting with either, I kept seeing myself being shoved out the door of an auto speeding along the Champs Elysees…No thanks—too rude, too volatile and too full of themselves. It remains a harsh assessment.

Early on I placed Agassi on par with McEnroe and Connors. Eventually Andre evolved into an exemplary tennis ambassador—but he was too wild and arrogant in the beginning. Those clothes! That hair!

Sampras was too remote and too sullen, and Courier’s game was too boring.

I was beginning to lose hope.

Then at Wimbledon in 2001 during a fourth-round match, 19-year-old Roger Federer conquered his mental demons long enough to take down Pete Sampras who, at that time, ruled Centre Court. It was Roger’s first big win at a major.

The world watched, waiting for another Sampras win. They bore witness instead to Federer’s immense potential and his astonishing shot-making.

Even though he lost in the next round and did not win his first Grand Slam final until two years later in 2003, Roger arrived on the big stage that afternoon. Accolades reverberated as Roger finally realized the scope of his destiny.

He played serve-and-volley tennis with the master and beat Pete at his own game by serving superbly and subjugating his emotions, which always skirted dangerously close to the surface. His body language remained positive, and he did not wither under the pressure or allow his focus to fade. It was a remarkable 5-set win.

Being a tennis fan is often an emotional journey. For me, Federer finally filled the void left by the departed Swedes Borg and Wilander.

He became the logical successor after more than a decade of waiting…in my estimation, he is the best tennis player on the planet and if I have a vote, the best of all times.

And you want to know what got me about Federer besides his phenomenal talent—the fact that he cried when he won…and the way he bit his lower lip when serving. What’s not to love???

Tennis outsiders don’t really get it. Fans don’t follow tennis just because of the sport. Most fans follow the player who captures their interest…whose game or personality excites…who arouses the fan’s pride, passion, or fire.

Whatever you wish to label it—it is entirely personal. You own it…you learn to live with it. It makes you get up at 2 a.m. to watch tennis from Australia, sometimes on a minuscule, blinking screen. It makes you sweat and scream and pace the floor.

It isn’t always pleasant, because losing is never fun. Moods can become suicidal…but the highs are worth it. Winning is exalting, breathtaking, surreal. It is pure release, accompanied by pleasure and joy. Astonishingly, all you did to sustain this high is watch a master at work.

I am a sports fan who loves tennis and more to the point, Roger Federer. Please, don’t expect me to be rational—to apply sane standards to my appraisals. Don’t expect me to be a good sport and accord Rafa or any other opponent his due.

I cannot do that. I can only howl like a child for what I want. I will pout, and with others like me—hold a collective breath—do what I can to have an impact. I will be unreasonable and demanding and unshakable in my defense…

For you see, losing Roger Federer is not an option for me. I have loved and lost too many times to find another like the mesmerizing Swiss maestro…

Rafael Nadal: Tightening a Miami Vise on Roger Federer by JA Allen

September 23, 2008

Playing practically perfect tennis against Roger Federer has evolved into an art form for Rafael Nadal. Nothing inspires him more or engages his senses more completely than striving to match his considerable strengths against the man many proclaim as the best player ever to wield a tennis racquet.

The quixotic mission to overtake Federer that has driven Nadal for the past 4½ years, finally propelled him into that vaunted No. 1 spot in August 2008.

It all began in March 2004 when newly dominant 22 year-old Roger Federer, feeling ill and stripped of strength, struggled mightily past Russian Nickolay Davydenko during the round of 64 of the Nasdaq-100 Miami Masters.

His next opponent was newcomer 17-year-old Rafael Nadal, ranked No. 36 in the world. Nadal was a hard-hitting left-hander from Spain, a country renowned for its prowess on clay. This, however, was a hard court event.

Anointed No. 1 a month earlier, Federer arrived in Miami having won 28 matches during the previous nine months, including his first Wimbledon crown in 2003 and his first Australian Open title in 2004. Even weakened, he expected to win this match.

Nadal had other plans. Playing nearly flawless tennis against Federer, Nadal defeated him 6-3, 6-3. While admittedly shocked, the tennis world should have stood still or spun backwards, because never was a tennis match more prophetic.

Nadal never faced a break point and he made 81 percent of his first serves. He even won 13 of 14 net points, punctuating his win with an overhead smash at the net! He played a nearly perfect match against the world No. 1 player. Keen observer Roger Federer suffered a shiver of recognition.

What did Nadal learn during that initial monumental Miami match in 2004? Besides being told to go to Roger’s backhand and to continue to attack, Nadal was informed that Roger was the No. 1 player in the world and that there was no shame in losing to him. This was the psychology employed. Simple enough when you are humble, proud and 17.

Facing overwhelming odds compelled Nadal even more. He plays his best when tilting at windmills. For Nadal with everything to win and nothing to lose, a victory meant that he was as on an equal footing with the top player in the world.

Integral to his mental makeup is the fact that Nadal never quits. There is honor in defeat as long as you compete completely. Nadal never lets up, he never lets go. Like a terrier locked on your calf, amputation is easier than ridding yourself of this man during a point. This is especially true when the stakes are high.

The Miami 2004 match was the most important one Nadal had played to date. He took away the knowledge that it is possible to play almost perfect tennis and that he, Rafael Nadal, could beat the best player on the planet.

Roger, on the other hand, attempting to stare down his future nemesis, blinked. Nadal noticed.

They met a second time in Miami a year later. Roger was riding another dominating year as No. 1. Again Nadal, playing extraordinary tennis, won the first two sets. This time, however, they were engaged in a five-set final. Luckily in 2005 the ATP still concluded its Masters Events finals with a best-of-five format.

Federer regrouped in time to win the third-set tiebreaker; then came back to win the last two sets. Even though Nadal lost, many considered it a break-through performance.

When they met again two months later for their first clay encounter, Nadal won the first of ten matches they would play on clay—ultimately, he would win nine out of the 10 clay contests.

Roger Federer possesses the greatest gifts ever bequeathed to a tennis-playing mortal. His movement, his timing, his agility, his hand-eye coordination, his precision, his analysis, and his speed…are all magically forged into one human being.

No one playing tennis has ever or will ever have more athletic skill at his beck and call than Federer. Watching him play has been likened to having a religious experience by the late David Foster Wallace in a now-famous article published in the New York Times.

In his early days on tour, Roger’s greatest weakness was his intermittent belief in his ability to win. A game plan that didn’t work right away was abandoned, often prematurely. Roger never doubted his skill or his shot-making or any of the technical aspects of the game he had mastered so easily and so well.

He remained inconsistent because he could not always be patient and sustain a game plan. He constantly outguessed himself and sacrificed his truer instincts.

Finally Roger learned to be calm—not to panic. He learned patience, making adjustments gradually. Once Roger mastered his temperament, he began to win. In fact, he became practically unbeatable.

He grew skillful at figuring out his opponents and waiting for them to self-destruct or to give up once they figured out that inevitably Roger was going to win. That freed him to play pure tennis.

Nadal, however, didn’t fit into Roger’s new world view. Employing his terminator mind set, Nadal played every point as if it were his last. Then, too, Nadal’s level of play often remained nearly-perfect when they met…like a programmed automaton.

At times Nadal’s aggressive and unrelenting play threw Roger back into his impatient, inconsistent past and Roger froze, not making the best decisions.

The rivalry between Federer and Nadal could prove to be the greatest rivalry tennis has ever known and it may just be getting interesting. So who is really better? Tough call.

But it comes down to this…if Roger Federer had Rafael Nadal’s mindset, there is no one who could beat him, including Rafael Nadal. It all goes back to Miami and that seed of doubt planted by Nadal in 2004...the seed that took root and spread vigorously throughout Roger’s psyche.

Going forward Rafa faces Roger with steadfast belief while Roger faces Rafa with a shadow of a doubt. Faith trumps fear every time. Until Roger masters his mental misgivings—kills the weed at its root, Rafa will own the court and continue to wear the crown.

Roger Federer Relocates to...Positively 4th Street by JA Allen

Roger Federer, our sublime tennis hero reborn, adorned in a shimmering blue sweater, eyes glistening, bathed in amber sunlight, crown intact, moves serenely into a bank of microphones surrounded by an always aggressive media corps…

You won the prize, Roger. Your world has been righted…your critics subdued. They are all singing your praises now that you have won your fifth straight US Open crown. You are master of your domain.

The yo-yo press is taking its lumps in style. Even petulant old desk jockeys parrot a new refrain, anointing Roger King for a Day. Massive back-pedaling progresses. In the midst of all of this melodramatic crow eating, however, an uncertainty surfaces.

Somehow, the accolades are less ebullient and the victory hangover less pervasive than in 2007, when the entire press corps agreed that excluding red clay, our boy was golden, perfect and practically unbeatable. Roger believed it, too. As did we all.

It is understandable. As a society, we are harsh —even fickle. We worship youth and beauty enhanced by sustained mental, physical and spiritual excellence. We cannot forgive or accept imperfections in our heroes, especially the press—aka, the forecasters of the fatal flaw.

Confined unwittingly to a bell jar, the sports wing of the fourth estate awaits the fall, the disintegration, and another catastrophic collapse. The end product is the ultimate break-through story. As streaks unfold, the press predicts and analyzes not only what happened but more profoundly what will happen tonight, tomorrow or at the end of the season.

All the while, on-air commentators hope for a final break, a release allowing a breath of fresh air into a predictable but often stale world order. The press needs change, shifting focus and new personalities in order to breathe life into their words and their interpretation of events. Otherwise, they remain trapped in their vacuum and cease to be relevant.

The reversed stance on the Mighty Federer’s career after the 2008 US Open victory represents a reprieve and not an absolution. Roger understands this now.

In 2008, he fell to earth. Federer’s escalation to the top of men’s tennis resulted in a prolonged flight too close to perfection. While there, he soared above his competition with a display of tennis acumen that left his competition seemingly flat-footed and chained to the ground.

Reporters exhausted an extensive reserve of superlatives in describing the game of Roger Federer for 4½ years.

As his wings began to melt in January of 2008, Roger could no longer sustain his ethereal level of play. His downward trajectory, however, allowed him a different perspective. As he tumbled toward earth, he learned about existing within the reality of his sport.

All the hours he spent courting the media jesters, reacting to their deadlines, their pleas for more substance, to add more grist for the media mill—were rewarded in 2008 by diatribes about Roger’s ineffective footwork, his age, his inability to summon his best, his dearth of effort, will and his mental and physical exhaustion. They were already anointing another No. 1 before he hit the ground and bounced down to No. 2.

The relationships he felt he had cultivated in the sports world had evaporated. The respect Roger felt he deserved was denied. His disappointment and disillusionment were palpable in his demeanor and through his remarks. Inevitably, the next loss Roger Federer suffers will bring a return of the negative back hand of the press.

Even though Roger feels he lost the media war, he won thousands of new fans. He regained his form and is on the verge of soaring again, perhaps not quite as high or for quite so long.

The stratosphere is a bit more crowded these days. Competition is intense. But Federer is back and the tennis world is more complete for his ascension. There will, however, never be another tennis athlete to fly so long and so close to the sun…

Wiser and better equipped to deal with his demons, our splendid hero now perches high on a balcony overlooking the courtyard being celebrated by thousands of onlookers. Ready to compete in the Davis Cup, our handsome Swiss hero smiles and waves to his grateful fans.

Finally he turns back to the press smiling, strumming slowly, recalling the lyrics of an old rock classic penned by the acidic troubadour Bob Dylan…you’ve gotta lotta nerve…

Confessions of a Tennis Junkie by JA Allen

September 1, 2008

Jerry Lewis made only one significant film—The King of Comedy—also starring Robert De Niro. There is no doubt that the quality of Lewis’ performance is aided in no small measure by Martin Scorsese’s direction.

On the surface, the film explores the uneasy relationship between a star and his “fans.” It is a quirky, edgy film—leaving onlookers feeling just a little uncomfortable, a little claustrophobic as De Niro and Sandra Bernhard harass Jerry, a famous talk show host, by following him around, invading his office, showing up at his house and eventually kidnapping him.

That is basically how I feel about my own addiction. I am a tennis junkie.

You may find me at all hours watching grainy, often jerky live-streaming matches on my laptop or worse yet, sitting with my chin in my hands watching scores blink on a “live score” site just so I can try to keep up with a worldwide sport largely ignored in the United States.

The truth of the matter is that I secretly suffer from TOPD—Tennis Obsessive Personality Disorder.

Throughout the years I have been obsessed with particular players, starting with the body-beautiful Bjorn Borg. Currently I am embroiled in my Roger Federer phase and I have been ever since chiseled Federer defeated Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001.

Being a “fan” of someone I do not know and will never know—following every move, word and gesture—strikes me as intrusive and unnatural. When Roger loses, I feel like someone close to me died. I suffer.

This puts me on par with the crazed characters in Scorsese’s film. Yet, I am not a fool—I know my behavior is excessive and I feel guilty about it. I long to be objective.

Here is the cruel irony of being an obsessed tennis fan—being the fan of an actor allows for decades of adulation. Even fans of teams can cheer on year after year, regardless of who populates the roster.

But to reach the top in tennis is an incredible feat. To stay at the top is an even greater accomplishment. Impossibly, once on top, the fan needs the reign to go on forever. It becomes, then, not Roger Federer’s Quest for Perfection, but our expectation of it.
Moreover, it is the media’s insatiable need to report, to stay on top, to be relevant that spurs on the constant demand for victory on a perfect note.

First, we nag Roger to win a Major—then a Slam. When he does that, we insist that he win two—then three—every year!

When he wins three—we chide him for not winning the French—just as we did Borg, who never won the U.S. Open; or Sampras, who also never won the French; or Wilander, who never won Wimbledon.

Agassi won on all surfaces and an Olympic gold medal, but he didn’t win enough. We are never satisfied as fans. We are spoon-fed our natural dissatisfaction through the media who articulate shortcomings as if their livelihood depended on it! We expect our sports heroes to obtain the perfection we lack in our own lives.

Throughout the years, I have come to understand that a “fan” like me invests heavily in the life of the star athlete. We who lead lives of quiet desperation, associating our own well-being through the success of our heroes.

No one applauds my sacrifices or successes. No one follows me around and bombards me with questions. The public remains blankly unaware of me. That is not to say that what I do for a living is less important, but it is easier to accomplish.

There are thousands capable of doing what I do—but only one or two who stand at the pinnacle of tennis. As my roles in life diminish and my persona fades, I rely on tennis to fill the voids left by age, divorce, solitude, and lack of talent.

I think what Scorsese was getting at in his film was perspective—from whose point of view is the truth revealed?

Comments:
Long John Silver posted about 1 year ago
once again - you have impressed me to no bounds, 2/2 your second article and am POTD ing again

why - because its nakedly true

the desire to not really worship - but understand someone in both victory and defeat is what that separates from a true junkie to a casual observer, you can see and observe what others cant

beautiful - am working on a similar piece ... you beat me to it, hence that will wait

wonderful JA - I like your take on the game, not just reporting, but you go behind the theory and the psychology of the game and the fans -

cheers - keep writing yeah ...

L.J. Burgess posted about 1 year ago
Stunning work. Stunning.

I've often felt that my complete detachment from wordly 'heros' was a psychological issue.

What a relief.

Fabulous Federer's Future Dancin' Feat

By JA Allen August 28, 2008

Dear Rog baby,

Been away. So sorry to hear your tennis career’s in the toilet! Who woulda believed it, man? How do you go from being feted filet mignon to dawg fodder in a few short months?

I hear both Big Mac’s calling it a day on your tennis career. There’s a load of American ground round temporizing Swiss prime! Every pen and shout man from here to Australia is busy composing eulogies.

There’s gotta be some sort of contest because no matter where you turn, black crepe is clogging the air waves—all with a tainted touch of deepest regrets and much tsking and lecturing about coaching, scheduling and motivation. It’s a monolith out here, man!

They say the US Open is your big swan song before they put you out to pasture...you and Big Brown. Bummer—but it is better nuzzlin’ fillies out in the hinterland than being put down literally—right, big guy?! Whoa Momma!

So who set fire to your invincibility cloak and nuked your Nikes? Did he who shall remain nameless invoke a Spanish curse? Btw, rumor was you and big Stan won a “gold medal” in Beijing. Right!! And I’m Sandra Dee!

No Shanghai sayonara for the Fed man this year? Understand you crashed and burned at Wimby and the French. Hope you at least reached the second round. Every franc helps! Tell me have you won a match this year? Holy horror stories, Swiss guy! Where’s the beat mobile when you need it?! And who was the Joker that beat you at the Aussie Open??

So what are you ranked now? 50? 100? God, I hope not lower than 100! What a year—surreal spiral…again, condolences on the end of a glorious career…but one door closes and another one opens, right big guy?!

Rog, I know you’ve got a couple of bucks stashed away so there is no need to panic. I just gotta tell ya, please, please—no matter how much dough they throw at you—do not agree to do Dancing with the Stars without letting me run interference! I know you can trip the light fantastic on the courts.

But, can you rumba, waltz or do the Paso Doble in skin-tight toreador pants and no shirt? Or how about a cha-cha or a quick step looking oh so hot with a glint in your eye as some gorgeous lithe dancer winds herself around you, ripping off your shirt and sliding down your thighs. Personally, I think you can do it, Rog, with my help.

Now, admit it—what sounds like more fun? Slogging your way back into tennis' top 10 or dancin’ neath the silver moon with one hand wavin’ free….I can see you already on another strobe lit path to fame and glory…show biz calls!

Comments:
Long John Silver posted about 1 year ago
WELCOME - Welcome to the tennis house

am LJS - and wanted to drop in to say hi

this came right out of the left field - very innovative .... unique and hence super interesting

liked it -

looking forward - definitely, to read more from you

cheers ....

J.A. Allen posted about 1 year ago
Thanks - hoped not too far left field. Big fan of your writing! New experience for me but love tennis. Again, nice to be acknowledged by the super stars...jaa

Long John Silver posted about 1 year ago
oh ... no

not a super star or anything like that - just a simple bloke who loves the game

would love to someone to write more about tennis .... join in (really)

Dan Noon posted about 1 year ago
are you sick in the head. mr. federer's career is not over. hes just talkin a break....his best is yet to come....

Brandon Evans posted about 1 year ago
Who said he's career is over?