Jon Replies

Hi everyone. Jon here.

Let me start by thanking Pete for the invite. As you all know, he does a hell of a job here and it’s great there are spaces like this where so many thoughtful, passionate tennis fans from all over the world can congregate. Once you’ve written a book, the real challenge begins: trying to keep some dignity while publicizing the book and making sure the word gets out. So you’re particularly appreciative of opportunities like this one.

Thanks, too, to all of you for your questions. It’s nice, too, to be able to discuss these topics in some depth with dedicated Rafa/Roger/tennis fans who, I think, too often get overlooked in the ongoing effort to convert and attract “mainstream sports fans.”  Enjoy Wimbledon everyone, even though some of the air has gone out of the tournament with Rafa's withdrawal. He'll be back, though, so and here goes. . .

Game Lover asks: Why does Rafa play tennis? And why does Roger?

• Interesting question. Truthfully, I think Nadal plays for the competition. This is not a knock, but I don’t get the feeling he loves the “gestalt” of the sport, the history and the tradition and the pageantry. (Put it this way: he ain’t crying if Rod Laver ever presents him with a trophy!)  He just likes getting out there with another dude on the other side of the net and matching skill/will. He just has that—cliché alert—taste for battle.

In Federer’s case, the motivation is not beating the opponent so much as it’s competing against himself, the possibilities, the laws of physics. Quest for Perfection, pretty much sums it up. Now, there are additional motivations: I think he likes his role as “tennis diplomat” and has really embraced the “global figurehead” duties that attend being a champion. I think he is motivated by legacy. I think he’s taken it as a challenge to boost the image and popularity of tennis. Federer likes winning but I suspect he wishes he didn’t have to beat someone else to do it.

Steven Healey asks: *In the Masters Series in Rome 2006, there were words exchanged between Federer and Uncle Toni during that 5-set classic on clay which Nadal won. What was the turning point in the Federer-Nadal relationship which brought them closer to a quiet friendship instead of turning into something that might have looked like the Federer-Djokovic rivalry?
*

• I don’t believe there was a seminal moment; I never heard of any formal “clear-the-air” meeting between Federer and Toni or anything like that. I just think that over the course of the rivalry both camps, inevitably, came to respect the other and recognize that, ultimately, each benefits from the other’s existence.

In addition, as different as Federer and Nadal are, they share a similar “Sports Belief System” and there’s a lot of overlap in the way they comport themselves. (Note, by contrast, their mutual dislike for the slick Etienne de Villiers, or the gloating Djokovic family).

One thing that became clear writing this book: rivalry encompasses such a strange dynamic. On the one hand, you are yoked together with this other figure, and a sort of kinship arises from this. On the other hand, your rival is a roadblock to your greatness/achievement/financial success. So no matter how much you might like each other, there are inherent limits to how close you can become.

Q: I just read Pete's post about McEnroe and was wondering: do you think that serve and volley is still really a viable option in today's game? With the slower surfaces, new strings and raquets? If you think it is, why aren't any of the current or upcoming generation S&V players? It seems as if S&V is the best-kept secret in tennis that everyone knows will work, everyone that is but the actual players or current crop of coaches? Every time Federer loses to Nadal, you can count the seconds before the armchair coaches come out and say he needs to "attack the net" more... Wouldn't mind your thoughts on this debate.

• Where to begin? I think serve-and-volley is an effective tactic, but no longer an effective playing style—like having a knuckleball in your pitching arsenal without being a knuckleball pitcher. As you note, the technology, the strings especially, have been a boon to the modern-day returner and changed the dynamic. At a time when tennis has never been more physical, is it not career suicide to bound to the net after every single serve? Yes, the points are shorter, but even recreational players know there’s a difference between running side-to-side and running front to back.

Also, I think there’s a mental component to serve and volley tennis that often gets overlooked. It can be very demoralizing to players to watch passing shots go whistling by. It’s like getting hit in boxing. Easy for the observer to say “be more aggressive;” but the fighter eats some leather and suddenly is reluctant to attack.

Ivan asks: 1. Looking closely, can one notice whether the poor light conditions affected the last points (in last year's Wimbledon final)? Is there anything noticeable in the way those rallies were played and how cleanly balls were struck? 2. Is it fair to say that Roger's game (or it's matchup against Rafa's) is more affected by poor light conditions than Rafa's (or it's matchup against Roger's) ?

• I can tell you, it was DARK. You know how the television cameras allegedly make you ten percent heavier? They make things ten percent lighter as well. When I watched DVD’s of the match, I chuckled at how much darker it was in “real life.” Roger hit (and nailed) two go-for-broke returns that I suspect he wouldn’t have played so aggressively in different conditions. But who knows? Trite as it sounds—the conditions were the same for both players. And I don’t know if it’s Roger’s “game” per se, so much as his personality that was adversely impacted by the dark conditions. The guy is organized and orderly and fastidious and doesn’t like imperfection, whether it’s undercooked food, a wrinkle in his clothes or sub-optimal conditions. So, yes, I think Federer was more affected.

Kwon asks: As a big fan of Federer, I always wonder why so many tennis commentators and reporters wrote him off time and again and then were embarrassed by his 'resurrection' in recent years. Is it due to the unpredictable nature of the game itself or to sensationalism their vocations often subject them to? Or is it due to the possibility that they as amateurs don't really fully understand the depth and height of top pro tennis players' games such as Federer's and Nadal's?

• I want to stick up for the tennis media here. When Federer goes through his occasional swoons (the first half of 2007, 2008, and 2009) the message boards explode, the commentators begin to put embalming fluid on Federer’s career and more than a few former players offer grim predictions. (See: Borg, Bjorn.) Yet I never read Pete or Chris Clarey or Neil Harman or Tom Tebbutt “writing Federer off.” In fact, the tennis media, I thought, was quite measured. Also, when a player dominates his sport for years and suddenly goes months and months without winning, it merits examination. It doesn't mean the player is suddenly dog food. But it's also fair to ask what's going on. Doing otherwise is negligent.

Ryan asks: What do you make of Uncle Toni's role in recent weeks regarding Rafael's physical well being and confidence? It seems to me that he has been honest almost to a fault. When reports first came out about Rafa's recent knee problems he immediately put Rafa's Wimbledon prospects into doubt. And recently he told reporters that Nadal's confidence was hurt after losing in the 4th round of Roland Garros. It seems that to a guy like Nadal who is such a tough mental competitor that this would be great news for his opponents going into England. Just curious as to what your thought are.

• Thanks, Ryan. Realize first, that to those of us in the media, the concept of “too candid” or “honest to a fault” doesn’t exist. No such thing. Someone told me they thought Toni Nadal was the real hero of my book and I don’t disagree with that. He’s a no bullshit kind of guy, a serial truth teller who has neither the time, nor the sensibilities, for spin or double-speak. Maybe it’s not textbook PR to speak in unflattering terms about the French crowd or fail to sugarcoat the knee injury. But I think the day Toni watches his words is the day he becomes less effective as a coach.

Federerfan asks: Whats’ your favorite movie? Why? ?This is not a joke, it’s a genuine question, if you thought it ok to answer it, much appreciated here.

• Ernest Saves Christmas. Jim Varney was really robbed of an Oscar that year. Seriously, I don’t know. Shawshank? Superbad? Lantana? Lives of Others? Really enjoyed The Wrestler. Long as we’re here: let’s tie this to tennis and make a plea for a tennis movie. Remember what Caddyshack did for golf or Bull Durham did for minor league baseball. Tennis could really use that.

Tennis Fan asks: Compare your experience writing this book as opposed to 'Venus Envy' which had multiple personalities over a season as opposed to one match. Was it harder, easier, different? Is your target audience the same?

• Strokes of Genius was much easier. There was a lot more clarity. But I don’t know if that was the material/subjects or if that was me*. Venus Envy* was my first book. A) I didn’t really know what the hell I was doing. B) The problem with the “year in the life” format is that you don’t know what’s going to happen. A few different bounces and it could have been Arantxa Envy. With Strokes, I knew where I wanted to take this book, how I wanted to structure it, what issues I wanted to stress and address. It was just a question of execution.

Also, I wrote this book from a much “happier” place. I liked the subjects. The match was the most exhilarating sporting event I’ve attended. I was eager to explain the virtues of modern tennis. With “Venus Envy” there was more ambivalence: Kournikova-mania, Richard Williams, Damir Dokic, Samantha Stevenson, the WTA’s backsides-over-backhands policy.

Codge asks: *Thx for taking the time. Wanting to know if you're working with audible.com to produce an audio version..?(no I'm not a shill for the company) ;-)

• Not that I know of. Though I’d like to get Boris Becker to narrate.

Thanks on behalf of all of us, Jon - Pete