The Locker Room 5.21.07

[Tennisworld note: I am supposed to appear tonight on ESPN' News's Pregame show with David Lloyd, where I will be spouting about Federer, Nadal, and other tennis-related matters - PB]

I'm always pleased when a newcomer posts a questions about the meaning of "WMB" or asks why the hail I can't spell "h-e-l-l" the way the rest of the Tribe does, the right way!  It's not that I revel in the insularity of Tennisworld, and just for the record I've always detested cliquishness - at least the superficial kind. It's possible to have a big tent that's also interesting, diverse and colorful, right? We are a Tribe, we have our own manners, customs and language.

The Warrior Moment meme happens to be a great way to enter into a discussion of yesterday's momentous event in Hamburg - Roger Federer's "upset" - for that is what it was - of Rafael Nadal in that Master Series final, a win made that much more resonant by the fact that it curtailed Nadal's stupendous 81-match, single-surface winning streak. That's an accomplishment that, I'm guessing, is going to outlive the career of either of yesterday's finalists and rank as one of those unassailable records.  So let's pause for a moment of silence to honor Nadal.

Bows head

Okay, let's move on. Federer's win was not a Warrior Moment, but before you throw your hands in the air and pitch the computer out the window (warning: pedestrians afoot!), consider the term. A Warrior Moment in the strict, formal sense of the term is a tipping point of sorts - a performance in which a player dramatically alters or shapes the perception the public has of him or her by demonstrating uncommon passion, courage and fighting spirit on an appropriately big stage: Sampras vs. Corretja at the U.S. Open is the quintessential WM: that is, although it was only a quarterfinal match, it occurred in a time and place that created massive,  repercussions. But a WM isn't really about the repercussions (In Sampras case, the public, relatively indifferent to Sampras at the time, sat up and thought, Man, this hombre has Wilanders! He's worth caring about!).

Serena Williams had a WM in the Sony-Ericsson Open in Miami a few weeks back, although in her case the WM had less to do with public perceptions (she knocked that ball out of the park in Australia) than with her individual quality as a competitor. Now my original thoughts on Warrior Moments, which utterly distressed fans of TMF when I posted them, was that Federer was so danged good, so elegant and able, that he had yet to capture the heart of the world-at-large with a suitably epic performance - one that usually involves being, figuratively, at death's door, only to prevail. Sure a little vomiting or cramping or crying helps, but it's not about the hurling. It's about, as Jimmy Connors put it, "Spilling  your guts in front of 20,000 people."

Now nobody would ever confuse The Mighty Fed with Jimbo. No way, no how, not in a thousand years of Sundays. Yet there's another way in which TMF actually did something that Connors, with his signature bombast, only threatened to do in a hollow if widely quoted sound bite. After losing a Wimbledon final to  to Bjorn Borg, Connors was asked if he would go to Australia, to prevent Borg from potentially completing a Grand Slam. He snapped, "I'll follow him to the ends of the earth."

Actually, Connors never followed Borg anywhere, although they met from time to time at three majors (neither of them had an overpowering interest in Australia in a typical year). That is, Connors did not pursue Borg with the kind of determination that TMF has displayed in his clay-court drive to turn the tables on Nadal. That, to me, is the main reason he deserves that cherished Warrior Moment Badge, even though it is less of a Warrior Moment than a Warrior Achievement.

When I first posted my I'll See you in Hell (sic) entry, I had mixed feelings. Look, we all know that Federer is far too even-tempered and smooth an operator ever to go snarling and cursing through a match, even if it can be shown to have Waterloo-grade significance. But in looking Nadal squarely in the eye and essentially saying, I'll play you anywhere, anytime, no matter how often you pound me into raw hamburger, TMF was demonstrating the same kind of tenacity and fearlessness that Sampras showed against Corretja except in a much broader context. The only quibble I have with my assessment, other than that, is that the headline on my entry failed to adequately convey that TMF already was in a kind of hell. And at moments in yesterday's match, you could see that in his expression. It wasn't agonized as much as it was opaque, steely and unflinching. But make no mistake, the reflection of the flames was dancing on his sweat-glazed forehead and the back of his neck.

There's a much less melodramatic way to look at all this (but what fun is that?): TMF knew that he had nothing to fear in playing Nadal; he himself owns the Wimbledon title, as well as most of the hard court biggies. So, given his own talent, what does Federer have to lose in confronting Nadal on every possible occasion on clay, where Nadal had mesmerized us into conceding him everything? Federer had to be thinking: One day, I'm going too play my game, my way, and it's going to be good enough - either because I'm that good, or because Nadal, like everyone else, is going to let down his guard, burn out, or just plain have an off day. I want to be there for it.

In other words, TMF followed Nadal to the ends of the earth. He didn't do that in Connors-esque, gunslinger fashion. He did it like an Apache scout, silently and patiently following the backtrail of his rival. So take your pick of interpretations: you can have the "hot" one (I'll See you in Hell) or the cooler, more typically Federer-esque one. I'm going to hunt you down and  bring you to justice, no matter how long it takes.

As far as the match went, I think another win over TMF with the weight of 81 consecutive matches on his shoulders and the deadness of the long season on clay absorbed into his legs proved too much for Jet Boy. I won't take any away credit from Federer: you know my credo: you show up, you play, you win or lose, and you shut up about the rest.

But we all know this was no re-enactment of Nadal's Warrior Moment match - last year's final in Rome - but with the roles reversed. But here's something else. For a few weeks now, I've been obsessed with Ivan Lendl (like, how scary an idea is that?). In almost every tennis conversation I've had, I've entrapped my interlocutor, casually asking him or her to name the five greatest male clay-court players in recent memory. On many occasions, I've even taken the most obvious choice - Borg - out of the equation, essentially yielding an extra pick.

I had responses ranging from Muster to Bruguera to Kuerten and Wilander. All the usual suspects. But not a single person - especially when I kept Borg in the equation - mentioned Ivan Lendl. Yet, as I wrote some days ago, Lendl clearly has a clay-court record second only to Borg. My pal John Hoffman said he left Lendl off the list because he's so anti-pathetic that you don't even think about him, and I suppose there's a point there. Yet Lendl is the role model for Federer, when it comes to playing Nadal, or any of the clay-court grinders who form his honor guard.

Lendl did not have a "clay-court" game. He won because he was all-around impregnable, powerful, consistent and determined. Lendl never needed a "strategy" to beat anyone, although it helps to, say, serve with enough variety and efficacy to keep a guy like Nadal from running around the kicker to the backhand and smacking a forehand. Great players win or lose based far more on their degree-of-confidence and execution than all but the most glaring - and correctable - of technical shortcomings. Sampras shortened the take-back and swing on his service return at Wimbledon - poof! - he's going in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It took him all of three or four days to make the adjustment. The rest is not rocket science, just history.

Speaking of which: has it occurred to anyone else that this Hamburg final might have only happened because TMF and Jet Boy owed Hamburg, big-time? Last year, they simultaneously bailed on the de facto German Open (due to exhaustion from the exceptional Rome final) last year. I have to believe that the promoters of Hamburg made them promise to play in 2007 - no matter what the circumstances - in exchange for being gracious about the double withdrawal.

So in one fell swoop - and in this, I think I had it right in my I'll See You in Hell entry - Roland Garros is  brimming with reinvigorated significance. The biggest question looming now is whether or not both men can get to that championship round. I don't consider it a slam dunk by any stretch.

Getting back to this Warrior Moment thing: Nadal's clay-court streak, like Federer's win yesterday, was not a WM but a Warrior Achievement. I don't know that we need to mint Warrior Achievement Badges (the factory is running round-the-clock already; our Lucy passes out those WMBs with the fervor of a Christian missionary ladling out beef stew in a soup kitchen, and good on her for it!), but I'm open to the idea if you raise an outcry over it.

Once you get done with the on-topic discussion here, feel free to use this as your week-long gathering place to discuss non-tennis related subjects. Happy Monday, everyone!