At what point in an athlete's career is it appropriate to have a book written about him or her? In the case of Roger Federer, one of the world's leading tennis journalists, Rene Stauffer of Zurich's Tages-Anzeiger and Sonntags-Zeitung, wanted to write a book on the Swiss genius soon after his first Wimbledon triumph in 2003, but the player and his family decided that it was too early in his career to embark on such a project. However, a few years later it became evident that Federer was entering the pantheon of tennis greatness and that his accomplishments should be documented. Thus was born the idea for "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection". Originally published in German in 2006 under the title Das Tennis Genie, the book has now been updated and translated into English for a worldwide audience.
The author, Rene Stauffer, first met Roger Federer in 1996 when the current world's number 1 player was only 15 years old. From that initial encounter, Stauffer appeared to be charmed by the young man and came away from the interview with a quote that served as inspiration for the title of his book. While explaining some of his bad behavior on the court, the young Federer revealed his philosophy on tennis. "One should just be able to play a perfect game." From then on, Stauffer understood what the Swiss superstar was trying to attain - perfection.
The book is separated into two parts. Part 1 deals with the rise of Federer and tracks him from his early days on the court through the 2007 Australian Open with almost encyclopedic detail. Part 2 examines Federer the man and what makes him special compared with other athletes and celebrities.
Two of the main themes that Stauffer introduces us to with respect to the rise of Roger Federer are his temper and the impressive variety of shots in his game. In order to ascend to Number 1 in the world, the young Swiss would have to learn to control both aspects. From an early age, it was apparent that Roger had a burning temper whether it had to do with tennis, school or board games. If he didn't get what he wanted, he could be very vocal about it. In tennis, this manifested itself into self destructive behavior on the court that affected his results all the way into his pro career.
As Federer progressed through the junior ranks in Switzerland, it was obvious to all that he had an amazing array of shots. However, he had no love for practice or training. He considered himself to be purely a match player. This would change over time as Federer learned that fitness was a huge part of attaining the results he wanted on tour. He would also become more and more comfortable with the sheer variety of shots in his repertoire. While many of the world's greatest players won their first Grand Slam titles at an early age - Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Mats Wilander, etc. - Federer did not. Stauffer explains that because of the number of weapons in the Federer arsenal, it took him longer to put his whole game together as opposed to some of the other players previously mentioned who were not quite as multi-dimensional as Federer. They had it easier as their games were more singular in focus. Once the Swiss superstar did put his game together and managed his temper, he became nearly unstoppable. The result was a veritable symphony of tennis that fans had never seen before.
In the process of becoming the world's best tennis player, Roger Federer remained true to himself. In Part 2 of his book, Stauffer describes a man who is comfortable being famous and enjoys the life he leads, yet he remains uncorrupted by the trappings of his fame. His commitment to friends, family and country demonstrate how truly grounded he is.
With Federer as the world's Number 1, the sport of tennis could hardly have a better representative. Federer understands his responsibility as Number 1 perhaps more than any of his predecessors in the Open Era. He is an ambassador of tennis to the world, and because of his multi-lingual abilities and his excellent rapport with the media, he is popular the world over.
While his popularity may be near a peak, the career of Roger Federer isn't over and one gets the sense that "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is simply the first book in a series. Federer continues to chase history. Part 1 of this book ended in January 2007 in Melbourne, Australia with another Aussie Open title for the world's best player. Federer has since ended Rafael Nadal's clay court winning streak at 81 matches, reached the French Open final for the second consecutive year, won his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title equalling the record of the great Bjorn Borg, and captured his 50th career title with a victory at the ATP Master Series in Cincinnati. With his Wimbledon victory, Federer's Grand Slam title count stands at 11, only 3 behind Pete Sampras. On the eve of the US Open where Federer will be going for this fourth consecutive title in New York, it's hard to fathom him not shattering Sampras' mark.
For the Federer fan, "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is a must read. It is an Encyclopedia Federer if you will, and the author's exclusive access to the player over the years gives the reader ample insight into the career and life of a man who may become the greatest tennis player of all-time.
"The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is published by New Chapter Press. Go to www.rogerfedererbook.com for more information including links to where the book is available for purchase.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Things Are Getting Close
All of a sudden, the Red Sox lead over the Yankees has shrunk to a measly 5 games, and the Bombers are percentage points behind Seattle for the wild card. If the Yanks form continues, it appears a near certainty that they'll make the playoffs. The question for Yankee fans will then become, can this team win the World Series for the first time since 2000?
The answer is "doubtful". I've been saying this for years and it's still true today - the Yanks are built to win in the regular season, not the playoffs. Mediocre pitching and stellar offense will win a lot of games against bad teams. It doesn't win games against good teams that have good pitching. Consistently scoring 10 runs a game isn't going to happen in October, and right now that's the Yankees modus operandi.
The answer is "doubtful". I've been saying this for years and it's still true today - the Yanks are built to win in the regular season, not the playoffs. Mediocre pitching and stellar offense will win a lot of games against bad teams. It doesn't win games against good teams that have good pitching. Consistently scoring 10 runs a game isn't going to happen in October, and right now that's the Yankees modus operandi.
Andy Murray's Future
The 2007 Rogers Masters in Montreal saw the return of Britain's Andy Murray to the ATP Tour after being on the sidelines since May with a wrist injury, and the results were decidedly mixed. The young Scot managed to squeak out a victory versus American underachiever Robby Ginepri in the first round before being humbled by Italian qualifier Fabio Fagnini, 6-2, 6-2. Obviously, this wasn't the return to form that Murray hoped for in Montreal and if anything, his poor play begs more questions. Is his wrist healed? Is Brad Gilbert the right coach? Can he ever win a Grand Slam title? Well, Murray's performances in Montreal were uninspiring and they have to give his fans pause when considering the future of Britain's number 1 player.
Another question on the mind of Murray fans after the loss to Fabio Fognini was, how did he lose so badly to the 139th ranked player in the world? Well, andymurraynews.com has a clinical explanation for that one.
As we've seen lately, Murray rarely loses to a lower ranked players [sic] so, either Fognini is a rising star, or Murray was struggling with fitness when he lost 2-6 2-6.
It seems so simple, doesn't it? Let's dispel the first part of the explanation that Fognini is a rising star. He isn't, and to suggest that he is is quite simply comedy gold. As Kenny Banya would say on Seinfeld, "That's gold Jerry, that's gold!" If Fognini was so good, he probably wouldn't have needed three sets to dispose of Canadian junior Peter Polansky in the first round.
Struggling with fitness? Possibly, but the temperatures in Montreal weren't that warm and Murray's match versus Ginepri didn't appear to be all that taxing. Presumably, Murray has been practicing and training, so he can't be too out of shape. Plus, doesn't Gilbert have him working out with various NFL strength coaches? Struggling with fitness seems like a lame excuse. No, the explanation for Murray's quick exit in Canada is more likely a lack of match play combined with mental discomfort over the injured wrist. Since Murray's game is more cerebral than physical, a return to form may take a few weeks of playing so Murray fans will have to be patient with the player.
In the meantime, let's ponder the question of Brad Gilbert and whether he is the right man to coach Andy Murray. The results so far appear to be rather neutral. From a physical standpoint, one immediate difference that's notable is Gilbert's influence on Murray's approach to the first serve. The young Brit is hitting big first serves all the time with no regard for first serve percentage. The American coach's belief is that the first serve percentage will gradually improve over time and that it is necessary to have a big bomb for a first serve if one is to make it into the top 5 in the world.
Other than the serve, there don't appear to be any other stroke changes in Murray's game due to the new coaching relationship. He's always been fairly solid from the ground so there wasn't much need to change anything there. His excellent return of serve has been helpful in handling big servers like Andy Roddick. How about tactics? If anything, Andy Murray's made his living on being a good tactical player, save for his over zealous love for the drop shot. Murray has always been adept at mixing up speeds and placement, and generally keeping his opponents off-balance. Gilbert's influence in this area isn't apparent at the moment. If one looks at Gilbert's results with Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick, the one strategic piece of advice that both men seemed to take from their relationship with Gilbert was to outwork and grind opponents into the ground physically by being stronger and by being aggressively consistent from the baseline. Agassi became a master at this style of play by running his foes ragged until they had nothing left to give. Roddick added a monster serve and a first strike forehand to the Gilbert mantra and rode that to his first and only Grand Slam title at the US Open in 2003.
Does Andy Murray have the tools to play the Brad Gilbert way? Perhaps a better question is, does Andy Murray want to play the Brad Gilbert way? Let's face it, both men are strong personalities and appear to be rather stubborn. Often times, Murray berates Gilbert from the court when things get tough in a match, and in general has a dour attitude while playing. He appears to be absolutely miserable on the court. While there is no prerequisite that one have fun while playing tennis, it does probably make for a longer career in the sport. And Murray's negative attitude can bleed into a letdown in his competitive spirit on the court as it did in the 5th set of his Round of 16 Australian Open encounter with Rafael Nadal this past January. After losing a competitive 4th set to Nadal, 6-3, Murray simply disappeared in the 5th and went down 6-1.
If there is one area in Murray's game that Gilbert must address in order for him to be a Grand Slam champion, it is that on-court attitude. He must convince the Scot that the negativity only distracts from the focus of winning and is therefore unproductive. He simply hurts himself. Can Murray learn to do this or is his on-court behavior just a matter of who he is and he'll never be able to change? If he doesn't change, British tennis fans will suffer several more years without a home-grown Grand Slam title winner.
Another question on the mind of Murray fans after the loss to Fabio Fognini was, how did he lose so badly to the 139th ranked player in the world? Well, andymurraynews.com has a clinical explanation for that one.
As we've seen lately, Murray rarely loses to a lower ranked players [sic] so, either Fognini is a rising star, or Murray was struggling with fitness when he lost 2-6 2-6.
It seems so simple, doesn't it? Let's dispel the first part of the explanation that Fognini is a rising star. He isn't, and to suggest that he is is quite simply comedy gold. As Kenny Banya would say on Seinfeld, "That's gold Jerry, that's gold!" If Fognini was so good, he probably wouldn't have needed three sets to dispose of Canadian junior Peter Polansky in the first round.
Struggling with fitness? Possibly, but the temperatures in Montreal weren't that warm and Murray's match versus Ginepri didn't appear to be all that taxing. Presumably, Murray has been practicing and training, so he can't be too out of shape. Plus, doesn't Gilbert have him working out with various NFL strength coaches? Struggling with fitness seems like a lame excuse. No, the explanation for Murray's quick exit in Canada is more likely a lack of match play combined with mental discomfort over the injured wrist. Since Murray's game is more cerebral than physical, a return to form may take a few weeks of playing so Murray fans will have to be patient with the player.
In the meantime, let's ponder the question of Brad Gilbert and whether he is the right man to coach Andy Murray. The results so far appear to be rather neutral. From a physical standpoint, one immediate difference that's notable is Gilbert's influence on Murray's approach to the first serve. The young Brit is hitting big first serves all the time with no regard for first serve percentage. The American coach's belief is that the first serve percentage will gradually improve over time and that it is necessary to have a big bomb for a first serve if one is to make it into the top 5 in the world.
Other than the serve, there don't appear to be any other stroke changes in Murray's game due to the new coaching relationship. He's always been fairly solid from the ground so there wasn't much need to change anything there. His excellent return of serve has been helpful in handling big servers like Andy Roddick. How about tactics? If anything, Andy Murray's made his living on being a good tactical player, save for his over zealous love for the drop shot. Murray has always been adept at mixing up speeds and placement, and generally keeping his opponents off-balance. Gilbert's influence in this area isn't apparent at the moment. If one looks at Gilbert's results with Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick, the one strategic piece of advice that both men seemed to take from their relationship with Gilbert was to outwork and grind opponents into the ground physically by being stronger and by being aggressively consistent from the baseline. Agassi became a master at this style of play by running his foes ragged until they had nothing left to give. Roddick added a monster serve and a first strike forehand to the Gilbert mantra and rode that to his first and only Grand Slam title at the US Open in 2003.
Does Andy Murray have the tools to play the Brad Gilbert way? Perhaps a better question is, does Andy Murray want to play the Brad Gilbert way? Let's face it, both men are strong personalities and appear to be rather stubborn. Often times, Murray berates Gilbert from the court when things get tough in a match, and in general has a dour attitude while playing. He appears to be absolutely miserable on the court. While there is no prerequisite that one have fun while playing tennis, it does probably make for a longer career in the sport. And Murray's negative attitude can bleed into a letdown in his competitive spirit on the court as it did in the 5th set of his Round of 16 Australian Open encounter with Rafael Nadal this past January. After losing a competitive 4th set to Nadal, 6-3, Murray simply disappeared in the 5th and went down 6-1.
If there is one area in Murray's game that Gilbert must address in order for him to be a Grand Slam champion, it is that on-court attitude. He must convince the Scot that the negativity only distracts from the focus of winning and is therefore unproductive. He simply hurts himself. Can Murray learn to do this or is his on-court behavior just a matter of who he is and he'll never be able to change? If he doesn't change, British tennis fans will suffer several more years without a home-grown Grand Slam title winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
