Fed, Lubie, and the Restoration of the Beautiful Game

Nasdaq-100 final, Federer beats Ivan Ljubicic (that's "Ljubicic" with a "j") in three straight—but all three went to tiebreakers. First off, it has to be demoralizing to lose three tiebreakers in a row. Heck, the statistics must militate against such an outcome. Still, Ljubicic—or "Lubie," as the Key Biscayne crowd monikered the competitive Croat—lost the match. Which, I think, reinforces a point I've made earlier: Federer is playing whole tournaments in a lower gear, preparing for the French Open, the second leg of a potential 2006 Grand Slam, rather than trying to blow through opponents.

Taking nothing away from Lubie, of course, who is a lovely player and a solid competitor. In fact, as I watched the final (delayed, because I'm finally beginning to get the hang of TiVO), I noticed a heartening trend: Ljubicic and Fed represent a new breed, the super-athletic player who disdains sheer power in favor of...well, a lovelier game. Lubie is really just a slower, somewhat less utterly dominant version of Fed, an all-courter who can hit a lot of shots and play more than competently in a variety of styles, from baselining to transition to serve-and-volley. Roddick should take note, because there is a generation of this type of player emerging, players who actually don't hit the ball as hard as possible on every single cut, players who are actually following Fed's lead and are restoring some of the beauty of tactics to the sport. They can do this because they are phenomenally fit and can create time for themselves with efficient movement. Quickness is becoming extremely important in this latest iteration of the game. In fact, it was quickness to the ball that allowed Fed to beat Lubie. When Fed needs to, he can upshift and create more space and time in which to play. Why doesn't he do this all the time? Because at the pro level, it's extremely demanding. And Fed is nothing if not aware of his need to preserve his resources over the course of a long year that includes four best-of-five-in-every-match Slams.

The talented Americans have not figured this essential lesson out yet, which is why their results aren't as good and they give the impression, when coming up against Fed especially, that they are behind the curve. Roddick is trying, but his game is so troubled by elaborate technical flaws that he's struggling to move to the next level (he's just not very fluid). Blake is better, but unlike a Ljubicic, he can't create space by varying his pace, spin, etc. He more or less has to move the ball around a little before he can use his speed to generate an opportunity to go for broke with a forehand. Often effective, and dangerous, but rapidly being outmoded. The trend involves what Fed, Ljubicic, and, say, Richard Gasquet are doing. Brute force (Roddick) and blazing speed (Blake) are fine, but hardly innovative. Brutal ball-striking excellence, of the sort evinced by Marat Safin, and mad-wicked topspin, aka the Rafael Nadal approach, are better alternatives to what I'm charaterizing as they new "beautiful" game. Safin because he can push the Federer-ists back off the baseline; and Nadal because he can get the ball up nice and high off the ground, out of the Federer-ists' comfotrable strike zones.

The TV commentators are starting to figure this out—begining to notice that something post-Sampras/Agassi, a sort of restoration of what tennis is supposed to be, is afoot.

Let's wait and see how it develops. Salient point remains, however: Fed is obviously taking a page from the Tiger Woods playbook and preparing for the Slams by appropriately modulating his victories in lead-up tournaments.