14

He did it. After the unseemly meltdown in Australia, where he frittered away the finals in a wrenching display of nerves, Roger Federer left no doubt from the beginning of the French Open final that he would seize the one title which had eluded his grasp. Gone were the nerves which had plagued him in the first sets of his previous matches in Paris, particularly once Nadal was eliminated, replaced by the return of the Federer that has stalked tennis courts for nearly a decade now. Roger applied the rapier to Soderling from the beginning of play and in a flash the first set was squared away. The match, which was concluded briskly in straight sets, might well have been more lopsided still had there not been the bizarre intervention of that spectator, which naturally unnerved Federer at a crucial stage in the second set when a break of Soderling's serve seemed on. And so Roger Federer fell to his knees in rapture, the accompanying tears finally being shed in joy rather than in agony. Much deserved superlatives descended on this remarkable champion, banishing the doubts which had dogged him since Nadal ruthlessly relieved him of the prizes that seemed his almost by right.

Tying Sampras at 14 grand slam titles was of course impressive, a testament to an unrelenting drive to succeed and the rare marriage of supreme natural gifts with a capacity for hard work. What I found more remarkable still was the fact that Federer had made the semifinals or better for 20 straight grand slam tournaments. What is more, on those occasions when he did not actually win the title, he lost only to highly seeded players who, more often than not, went on to win the tournament. This seems like his most enduring mark on the record books, the record that is likely to stand the test of time. It is worth dwelling on this achievement somewhat more though; there have been no "Soderling moments" in Roger's history. No interloper has been able to sneak up on him and bundle him out of a major tournament. Whatever Nadal may go on to do, I think we have to give Federer his due. He has set a standard of sustained excellence that puts him in a stratum of his own.

The question of whether Roger now goes down in history as the greatest of all time (GOAT) is not completely decided for me though. I recognise that this is something of a contradiction based on what I said above, but I think he needs to try to get his rivalry with Nadal into something approaching balance first. This would preferrably be done in Grand Slam finals, especially, albeit improbably, at Roland Garros! There is a disconnect between according someone that title when they are being overmatched by a contemporary on every surface. I tend to think though, that having won the French Open, thereby quieting his critics and completing his resume, Federer will relax again. Puzzling statistics over the last year or so, which show his effectiveness at breaking serve declining spectacularly, surely the result of pressure, might begin to turn around. His victory over Nadal in Madrid revealed a Federer more willing to go on the offensive against Nadal, the only way to prevail against the greatest counter-puncher of all time. Soderling underlined the wisdom of this approach when he authored his great upset in Paris. He punished every short ball and declined to let Nadal work his way into points. Throw in a serve that was at 140 mph on several occasions and you have a number one seed out of the draw. Incidentally, there was a delightful crackle of intensity to that match provided by the tincture of unpleasantness between the two men left over from their epic match at Wimbledon in 2007. It was a contest that lasted for five days, caused by the typically foul weather that descends on London in June. The natural frustration that would ensue from playing a match seemingly without end was compounded for Nadal by Soderling imitating his foibles (notably the apparently incessant need for Rafa to extract his underwear from the crack of his ass) and refusing to acquiesce in Nadal's repeated flouting of the time limits between points. All of this suggested Soderling's refusal to accord Rafa the respect that can at times make defeating a top player impossible for a lower ranked one. This was the attitude that was in evidence on that middle Sunday at Roland Garros as Soderling methodically executed his game plan against Nadal. To his credit he then went on to win two more rounds before succumbing to Federer in the finals. Interestingly, Soderling had practiced with Federer in the past and clearly liked and respected him deeply. I think these facts, combined with fatigue and a sense of the weight of the moment, prevented him from playing at his best for most of the match.

So, bravo Roger and on to the grass court season. Who could have imagined that Federer would be going into Wimbledon holding the French Open title and being the favourite at the AELTC particularly given the uncertainty of Nadal's health. Certainly not I! Mindful of the imperfections of my crystal ball, and the wisdom of Mark Twain when he said that nothing is harder to predict than the future, I will decline the opportunity to prognosticate. Let me finish by saying that I would not at all be surprised if the Centre Court was once again Federer-owned real estate.

Federer...again

As my small coterie of readers will know, I am a huge fan of tennis and consider Roger Federer to be the finest practitioner of the game that I have encountered in my 30 years of following the sport. This being so, like many of fellow Federerites out there, I am confronted by the temptation to believe that this might finally be the year when Roger conquers Roland Garros and ascends to immortality. We will have taken note of his, once again, ending a lengthy Nadal streak on clay in impressive fashion. Surely, having emerged from the psychological wreckage of his implosion in their titanic clash in Australia, Federer is ready to claim his first French Open?

Reluctantly, I must conclude that our hopes are likely to be forlorn again. Impressive though a victory over Nadal on a clay court in Madrid ostensibly is, we have to remember a couple of important points: the effects of altitude in creating faster conditions than exist in Paris, and the fact that Nadal had played an extraordinary, physically-gruelling match the day before against Djokovic. Throw in the additional point that streaks have to end sometime, and that it is perhaps ideal to have them culminate prior to a grand slam tournament. It remains difficult for me to see Federer winning three sets against Nadal in Paris, given the heavier conditions that will exist, to say nothing of the vastly improved play and determination of both Djokovic and Murray to enter the conversation about who is the current world's number 2. 

What must next be acknowledged is the degree to which Rafa has entered Roger's head. Such has been the impact of his indomitable competitive spirit and his peerless capacity to turn defence into attack, that Federer seems visibly straitened, his ability to execute, seemingly, every shot in the book (and several in a book entirely of his own) severely curtailed. In these encounters, curious lapses in his play and mental strength proliferate. One forgets that in Rafa's victory at Wimbledon last year, Federer was up a break in the second set, at 4-2, and then proceeded to implode at that vital juncture. What has mystified many of us is the degree to which Federer seems incapable of making adjustments to his game to counter Nadal. In Australia, Nadal was getting away with serving 2nd serves at less than 80 mph to Federer's backhand, over 80% of the time, without being made to pay a price. Federer only ran around a handful of these weak deliveries and despatched them with his forehand. This meant, as it did at Wimbledon, that Nadal was able to save at least 10 break points in the course of the match. It would seem obvious that a coach might be helpful in improving Roger's tactics, but the stubborness which made him a champion has blinded him to this need in the face of a challenge from a man who has had the temerity to refuse to yield to Federer's elegant game and has instead assiduously worked to be able to neutralise it.

In conclusion, it seems to me that Federer will have done very well if he makes it to the Finals in Paris once again. On getting there, if it is Rafa who faces him across the net, I see no reason to believe that the result that day will be any different from their previous encounters at Roland Garros. I do not forsee Roger getting lucky again in encountering a weary Nadal at that stage. We will then be confronted by a world's number 1 who will be the holder of the first two grand slam titles of the year, going into Wimbledon where he is the defending champion, being well on the away to achieving a grand slam....a goal with which Federer flirted for the past two years. Will he do it? My guess is he will, that is, unless his masterful job of managing pressure begins to unravel. For the past couple of years Rafa has been brilliant at deflecting pressure on to Roger in all of their encounters. There was always fulsome praise of Federer as "the best player of the history" sic, possessing the best forehand, etc. This made any losses, few as there were, pre-ordained and thus nullities, and any victories that much more impressive. Federer was the one who walked with the heavy weight of history on his narrow shoulders. This situation might be altered somewhat if Nadal goes on to win in Paris (a near certainty) and at Wimbledon (surely within reason). The clamour that would follow him as he began to play the US Open would be enormous and his ability to handle this burden would tell us a great deal about this remarkable young man, and should make his empathy for Federer all the deeper.

Elegy on "The Special Relationship"

The British PM, Gordon Brown, has just concluded a visit to the United States, the first European leader to be received by the new Obama administration. Few would regard this honour as anything but proper recognition of Britain's place as America's most stalwart ally; more proof of the enduring strength of the special bond between the United States and the United Kingdom. From it's inauspicious beginnings in the vortex of war and revolution, the relationship between the two countries went from strength to strength culminating in the partnership which, since WWII has secured the triumph of democracy and constructed and guaranteed the security and financial arrangements of the world since 1945. In keeping with this deep bond between nations, Brown delivered an address to a joint session of Congress, a rare honour, in which he received 19 standing ovations. This was quite a coup for a man not known for the felicity of his oratory. All in all, this appeared to have been a successful visit, providing Gordon Brown with a welcome respite from the the turbulent British political scene, where he is beset by a perfect storm of crises and low poll ratings.
Obama had already ruffled British feathers by returning a bust of Churchill, lent to President Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This was not seen merely as further proof of the new President's attachment to Lincoln, whose image replaced Sir Winston's, but as evidence of Mr. Obama's indifference to the 'special relationship'. It was through a prism tinged by concerns of this kind that the British press viewed Gordon Brown's visit. So we learned of the care which Mrs. Brown took in choosing presents for the Obama girls, in contrast the presents the Obama's got for the Brown children seemed to have come from the White House gift shop. Mr. Brown chose his present for the new president with an eye place squarely on history. It was an ink-stand fashioned from a Royal Navy ship that had played an important role in suppressing the slave trade. In return the prime minister was given a collection of dvds, admittedly of classic films, leading one Fleet Street wag to wonder whether the president was unaware of the fact that there were dvd shops in the UK. The president also declined to hold a fancy dinner in honour of the Browns and there is a suggestion that he had the minimal level of contact with the PM during the visit. It was further surmised that a final call placed by the president was prompted by Brown's triumph at Congress, and was only made as the PM's plane was on the tarmac about to leave. Now the floodgates opened and the dirges for the 'special relationship' began in earnest.
The fact is this relationship has long since ceased to be special and it is a mystery that the misapprehension that it is has survived so long. A brief historical survey will illustrate this point. By 1812, Britain and the newly-independent United States were at war, a conflict which saw American sailors being impressed by the Royal Navy and the burning of Washington and the White House. In the 1860s, during the Civil War, the British Government came exceedingly close to recognising the Confederacy which would in all likelihood have precipitated the end of the Union. The 1890s saw the two powers nearly going to war over the issue of the proper placement of the border of British Guiana with Venezuala. WWI saw the US becoming the world's creditor, displacing Britain in the process. The British government became severely indebted to the US during the war and had to make territorial concessions as well in lieu of other forms of payment. The settlement that followed the war showed the world the extent to which America had become at a minimum primus inter pares, in reality the dominant global player. Our image of WWII is of Roosevelt doing all he could to aid Britain in its darkest hours and then, following Pearl Harbour, forming a partnership with Churchill which doomed the Axis. Leaving aside one problem, the criminal diminution of the decisive Soviet role in defeating the Wehrmacht, there is the fact that in no sense could the Churchill-Roosevelt relationship be called a partnership.
There may have been personal warmth between the two men but the fact was that Roosevelt left no doubt as to who was in charge. Churchill recounts in his memoirs the painful realisation that he was being shunted aside as Roosevelt, through a combination of realpolitik and a growing liking for Stalin, converted the so-called 'Big Three' into a dyad. No considerations of a special relationship gave Roosevelt the slightest pause as he pushed for measures that would hasten the demise of the British Empire. The post-war settlement, from the point of view of the west, was fashioned by the Americans and with the Suez crisis of 1956 all doubts as to Britain's true position in America's view was removed. Eisenhower forced Britain to reverse its effort, in concert with France and Israel, to maintain control of the Suez canal. There is much in this step to commend vis-a-vis the support it gave to the sovereignty of a nascent nation and the general slap-down it delivered to colonialism. What cannot be gainsaid is that it was now way for one country to treat another, one which was ostensibly its 'special friend'.
Fast forward to the 1990s: following the love-fest between Reagan, then Bush 41, with Mrs. Thatcher, we have the assumption of power by a young Rhodes scholar, Bill Clinton. Notwithstanding his personal history, Clinton's administration was clear that it placed more interest in Asia, the coming locus of power, and even in other countries in Europe, than it did in the UK. Most humiliating of all was the courtship of Sinn Fein and its leader Gerry Adamns which included Mr. Adams being a guest of the president's in the White House. Remarkable stuff, that a man who had a terrorist past, with activities directed against the UK, was feted by Washington's elite.
The years under Bush 43 offered a sort of false dawn in the relationship between Britain and America, particularly after 9/11. Blair locked himself in a fulsome embrace of G.W. Bush and was rewarded with warm receptions in Washington and pointed praise as America's truest friend. Mr. Blair effectively destroyed his premiership by joining America in its misadventure in Iraq. Far from representing an apogee in the US-UK relationship, I would argue that Blair's strategy revealed the parlous state of the 'special relationship'. It was a desperate roll of the dice to bring back the imagined halcyon days of Churchill and Roosevelt. Like any effort to bring back the past, this gambit was always going to be forlorn and it has reaped a whirlwind for the once all-conquering Labour party.
So, whether Obama's coolness to Brown resulted from his Kenyan-Irish roots (lots of reasons for Britophobia in those histories!) or from the conventional wisdom that Asia is the place that merits the unbridled attention of the US, or simply that like all winning politicians, Obama abhors losing ones (Brown has all the markers of this type) it is of a piece with a larger reality: America is just not that into you Britain! The cultural commonalities will occasionally provide areas of comity, and there will be cooperation on a variety of issues in the future. What is well and truly dead is the illusion of something more; of Britain being Greece to America's Rome. The UK is, for the Americans, a small island off the western coast of Europe.