Subprime?
Roger Federer walked into his press conference at Indian Wells this afternoon with the same expression I've seen on Bank CEOs' faces as they're hauled in front of Congress to explain why everything's just gone to pot.
Now, it's true that none of the CEOs have been sweating from literally walking in off a stadium tennis court, and none of them have been carrying two bags loaded with tennis gear. Come to think of it, I haven't seen Federer, or any other player, literally come into the interview room still carrying their bags. But Federer needed to face the press, and he clearly wanted to get it over and done with. He was polite, but only just: at least he didn't blame the economy.
If Federer's stock was traded on the NYSE (ticker symbol: TMF), it would have registered a slight uptick just after the opening bell. Federer had Murray at 0-40, 2-1, but he then missed on five backhands in a row. One passing shot went just long, others looped away or finished tamely in the net.
This established a pattern for the first set. Murray doesn't give Federer a lot of pace: Federer seemed to have come in with a game plan based on giving Murray no pace either, and there were a set of BH-BH rallies with Federer hitting gentle slices and Murray loopy topspin or similarly soft slices back to the ad corner. The rallies often ended with Federer making a soggy unforced error. The crowd, like a group of nervous investors, tried to pick up Federer as early as 2-4, but to no avail - Murray broke a second time to take a 6-3 lead.
In a match between two "neutral" players, it was striking to see how hard the California crowd pleaded for Federer to make some kind of run. Murray was playing outstanding defense, forcing Federer to hit great shots to win a point. Federer held after a multi-deuce game to make the score 3-3, and the crowd murmured with relief. In the next game, Federer finally converted a BP with a clean FH strike, and got a roar as he walked to his chair. Federer had switched tactics, serving and volleying and trying to force Murray to pass. At one point, Federer yelled "c'mon!" after Murray made an unforced groundstroke error into the net during the middle of a game, something I've not heard before. When Federer served out the set, his stock was on the way back up.
The first three games of the third set were the best of the match - both players had found at least their A- game, and we finally had the kind of rallies we saw in Shanghai. The turning point in the match was odd: at 0-15, Federer played a wrong-footing volley, and as he twisted at the baseline Murray fell awkwardly with an audible yelp. He was slow to get up, gingerly testing his movement - he'd later refer to an old groin injury. Federer checked to see that Murray was OK, then walked back to the baseline to serve. My notes then read "loose F BH 15-30, loose F BH 15-40, F slice bottom of the net 3-1." On the tennis market, a rush of "Sell" orders flooded in. Federer didn't win another game: he fought off three MPs in the final game, but not the fourth: with a brief wave to the crowd he was off the court and straight into the interview room.
I asked him what had happened after Murray's tumble:
Later on, I asked why he thought Murray had been able to take four third sets in a row in best-of-three matches. That's when the black humor came out:
Murray now has a 6-2 record over Federer, including the last four times they've played. He came into his own press conference wanting to make a statement: Federer didn't lose that match, I won it:
As an objective partisan - a fan silently cheering for Federer, but (this week) a journalist trying to write about what I've seen, not what I wanted to see - Federer has seemed some way from finding his natural game against all five of his opponents this week. I didn't put this in comments, so I'll have to rely on Steve Tignor to back me up, but over burgers at the Beer Hunter last night I admitted that for the first time I was giving Murray a 60% edge over Federer for their match. I didn't see Federer play really well for any complete set this week - there were patches of good play and the occasional flourish, but no sustained run of form. Federer said that, for him, was a decent tournament - "Not the greatest of all time, but it was all right."
Yesterday I wrote that Roger Federer doesn't let anyone forget that he's Roger Federer. And I suspect one of the things that angers Roger Federer is that Roger Federer didn't used to consider semi final losses in a tournament a "decent" result. At one stage in his career, between the defeat by Nadal at Roland Garros in 2005, and the loss to Djokovic in Melbourne at the Australian open in 2008, Federer won 34 straight tournament semi finals. He was the ATP's "Mr Saturday." Since Melbourne, he's 9-4 - not horrible, but three of those losses have come at Murray's hands. At the moment, Murray seems to have established the terms on which their matches are played, and that would have seemed unthinkable in 2007.
Barack Obama was in California this week. I understand he's got a full plate with other things, and anyway, basketball is more his game. Roger Federer used to be one of those institutions that seemed Too Big To Fail, but right now UBS isn't the only Swiss firm with shaky foundations. And if there's going to be a bail out, he's going to have to do it himself.