As the fifth set in the championship at the year-end event started, and David Nalbandian proceeded to win four games in steady succession, the camera swung to Roger Federer, standing at the service lines, his racquet lying on the ground, his arms crossed, a frown on his solid and normally happy appearing face. As if he were contemplating a problem not encountered before. Or at least since June of this year, the time when he last lost a match. .

His long-time partner and manager, Mirka, speaks of how happy he is when he wakes up in the morning. Any morning. That made me cringe. A man who does that on a regular basis should be beaten, just on principle alone. But this was excruciating to watch now.

Roger was getting his butt kicked. And this even after winning the first two sets in nerve-wracking tiebreakers, lengthy and extremly hard fought. That should have broken the back, if not the spirit, of David Nalbandian.

But to David’s great credit, the biggest weapon in his arsenal today was his tenacity. He was determined to hang in there with the era’s greatest player, he knew he had been playing well, he knew if he stayed with Federer he would get chances. He played steady, he played consistently. He came out out of the gate firing with deep, heavy shots. He wanted to make the statement, “I am here to push you around, I am going for my shots.” Roger was kept on his toes. Nalbandian really took it to him.

Once he had his serve and ground game working well, Nalbandian could afford to take chances. He closed often into the net behind a weak Federer shot, and won a lot of his points there. Both guys went drop-shot crazy today. Personally I happen to love seeing all these little birdies fly, ever so low, over the net for winners. But the hackers at home are going to go crazy when they see this, and I’m afraid they will all rush out and try to duplicate it. That won’t be a pretty sight. You can’t teach this shot, you can only talk about it. The player either has it or he/she doesn’t.

The fact that this was a five-set match could have, nearly, foretold the outcome of this match. Time was clearly on Nalbandian’s side today, he had the better conditioning. Roger had nearly enough breath from somewhere to snatch the victory out. But just as Amelie Mauresmo really needed the win in Los Angeles at the women’s event, David Nalbandian needed to lay similar “choke” histories to rest with a win here today.

Their history is interesting, going back to the juniors, when Nalbandian held sway over Roger. He did not start beating his Argentine nemesis until the final of this same event two years ago. Now Roger Federer has won their last four matches.

You can sense why Nalbandian has given Federer trouble over the years. For my money, Nalbandian is a kind of updated version of Borg. He drives you nuts, he wears you down, his steadiness is destined and structured to defeat the “artistes” on the tour, and Roger is certainly that. David played very steady today. The human backboard, and much of the time he not only got the ball back, he got it back with a vicious dollop of pace that forced errors today, until Roger looked like he did in his first week of play here, when he struggled to reach his form after a long layoff due to an ankle strain.

Nalbandian was able to keep this up, he was absolutely dogged. I think you have to honor a man, only one of four men this year, to beat Roger Federer. This was a worthy match for both men, despite the tension of the close games, and despite a bit of testiness between them it appeared at one point, when Roger Federer seemed to complain to the chair about something Nalbandian was doing. Perhaps he felt David was questioning too many of his shots. The guys held it together, until they brought out the very best in each other. Federer salvaged what could have been an awful bagel job like he inflicted on Gaston Gaudio, his semi-final opponent. Only it could have been on him in that fifth set going down 6-0.

If we could be the fly on the wall tonight, or whenever it is, that Tony Roche goes over the match with his pupil, Roger Federer, maybe he would not say very much at all. Many of Roger’s errors later in the match came out of exhaustion. Where the guy found “the fumes,” as Patrick McEnroe referred to it, to push his way back into the match, and nearly pull it out, is something of a mystery.

Roger was born under the sign of Leo, the natives of that sign have a innate sense of pride in all they do, and they will strive to defend their good name against all odds. He hates to lose.

At the post-match interview, Roger was quoted as saying he was very happy he played the way he did today. That is a great thing to hear.

The fifth set tiebreak came right down to the wire, and it was a most fitting end to the day. You really can’t say there was a loser, although for Federer it will seem a sad end to several wonderful winning streaks, having won 24 finals up until this one, 35 matches overall, and he threatened to tie John McEnroe’s record of 82-3 overall during a year. Federer will now be 81-4.

I keep babbling on in this column about how a guy like Federer really needs worthy rivals. This match might loosen up the men’s tour, you can just imagine the other guys are watching all this in the players’ lounge, or whatever dive bars they happen to hang out in. The fact a good, solid but not spectacular player like David Nalbandian can emerge from the pack late in the season and beat the World’s No. One, will fire the boys up. Good for business.

Rafael Nadal, Marat Safin, Andre Agassi. Those were the guys who were expected, and often have, given a lot of trouble to Roger Federer. I don’t quite include Andy Roddick in this mix, at least not of late. Federer has given him a case of the yips, and I don’t see Andy feeling he can beat Federer anytime soon. Better just to let the guy be and take some of that pressure off.

David Nalbandian? That was not a name that automatically sprang to mind as a potential usurper of the Federer throne.

But now that he’s here, why come on in, guy, and have a seat at the table.
– – – – – –

The women’s year-end championship event was barely into the semifinals in Los Angeles when the men started their round-robin tournament in Shanghai. I suppose by the time it’s nearly over we will have figured out the time difference on that side of the world. If anyone doubts the season is too long, just look at how both fields were decimated leading up to the tournaments. And today it was announced that Rafael Nadal and Andre Agassi have both pulled out due to injuries. We’re crawling across the finish line; no big bang here, just a lot of whimpering.

– – – – –

“Six weeks off, a bad ankle, and no match play”

Is this the formula which might contribute to Roger Federer having a less than stellar day? David Nalbandian was probably hoping so. Time was when he used to have the edge over Roger in their matches. But that changed over the past two years, and Roger has started beating him consistently. Today proved to be no exception. It was an odd match to watch though. We are so used to seeing Roger’s flowing style that we forget the guy may actually have a bad hair day now and then. He may have to settle for winning ugly.

Roger Federer’s accomplishments are ticked off by the announcers in every match, and the list often sounds ho-hum. Until they get to that amazing stat: the guy has won five grand slams in two years. This is glorious and good, but Roger has added another weapon to his repertoire. He can prove he can win on days when he is not at his best. Don’t underestimate the value of winning ugly. Roger seems inclined to rest his body now and then, he is not afraid to take long gaps of time off from tournament play. So when he does play, given that beautiful game that relies so much on timing, he may not hit his stride early in a tournament. So winning ugly is a skill you need to have.

Brad Gilbert and Patrick McEnroe were doing the TV commentary, and Gilbert predicted that Nalbandian could pull off the upset. The courts here are extremely fast, and Federer has said he is not all that comfortable on them. His right ankle was taped from a lingering injury he sustained in practice, and everyone is looking to see how it fares here today. If Nalbandian was going to have a shot at winning, today was the day.

The ankle seemed fine. The little, subtle things were throwing Roger Federer off. The timing wasn’t all quite there, he’d miss shots. But then he would play beautifully, in patches. But then he couldn’t string the patches together in any flow for long. His long layoff since the U.S. Open really is showing the effects today.

But then he spices things up with little touches of miracle along the way. Towards the end of the first set, Roger dumps an amazing dropshot from well back in the court. It just gets over the net right by the sideline, and lands not only with backspin, but sidespin too.

“Are you kidding me?” exclaims McEnroe in disbelief.

I’m waiting to see if Federer smiles. Sometimes he gives this quaint little smile after some fantastic feat on the court, a cat who’s just swallowed the canary and is rather pleased with life. But today he doesn’t smile.

Nalbandian fights back in the second, he starts to nail his shots as Federer falters. Nalbandian wins the set, 6-2. Gilbert started talking upset again in the booth, even though he also took Nalbandian to task for being out of shape. The guy’s got a small paunch, says Brad, somewhat indelicately. But it’s true. The clothes just aren’t quite baggy enough to cover it. This is one guy I don’t want to see in a Speedo at the pool. Gilbert’s right of course, a guy who gets this far in the rankings should spend more time on his conditioning, so we actually see it. Nalbandian needs to be fitter if he wants to go farther. He’s got a solid game, he knows how to compete and gut hard matches out. His serve is rather lackluster, but maybe with better conditioning he could address that.

Federer struggles into the third set with his timing, especially on the backhands. He was missing a number of them today. Gilbert pointed out that it is tougher for a player to get his rhythm back on a faster surface than a slower one. But by the end of the set, Federer had stepped it up so that you had no doubt now that he would win.

Federer defeats Nalbandian, 6-3, 2-6, 6-4.

– – – – – – –

Guillermo Coria and Ivan Ljubicic presented an interesting contrast in their opening match. Coria is barely 5’9″, Ljubicic is a strong-looking 6’4″. Mutt and Jeff, but there were no mutts out here today. Coria had no opportunity to get into a groove from the baseline. Ljubicic beat him to it. He simply overpowered his smaller opponent with deep strong shots from the baseline and some powerful serving.

I am torn between calling the big Croat “Lube” or else Nosferatu. He looks kind of scary, with that (nearly) bald head and that (almost) totally black outfit, along with a few stripes of white and neon yellow. For my money, this is going to be one of the best players on the tour. I see no reason why he can’t be the third man on the totem pole in men’s tennis. The first two spots are already sewed up by you know who, Mr. Roger and Mr. Rafael. But Ivan can work his way into the mix, and I expect him to continue into ’06 the strong year he has had in ’05.

His windup on the serve reminds me a lot of Greg Rusedski’s. Of course he’s a righty and not a lefty, but the power and depth are about the same and he worked it against Coria to great effectiveness. His one-handed backhand pleases me no end, it is one of the best in the men’s game. His forehand is smooth and consistent too, he reminds me here of the great Slovak player of the 80s, Miloslav Mecir.

This guy is ready for a big move up. As Brad Gilbert discussed him further in the booth, I wonder if “Lube” is ready to take on a coach like Gilbert. Assuming they were compatible of course and also if Gilbert wants to take up another pupil. But the change might be a great one for Ivan. He has all the strokes, now he needs that tweaking of his confidence to put him consistently in the running. Brad Gilbert may be able to instill that in him. Gilbert likes aggression on the court, and that is what Ivan Ljubicic’s game needs now, that ability to win points from anywhere on the court. Like maybe at the net too a bit more. His conditioning has been first rate, although he could use a bit more speed. But at 6’4″, he will inevitably suffer from the large player’s flaw, what he has in strength and power he will lose in swiftness.

But his competitiveness is excellent. This is a guy who leads all the other players in an interesting statistic: Ljubicic is humber one in the world when it comes to saving break points.

He played a decisive physical match against one of the most physical players in the game, and beat him handily.

I think 2006 is going to have yet another (nearly) bald guy in the top ten.

– – – – – –

Having waxed poetic about the inherent beauty and style of the one-handed backhand in a recent column, I would like to look at some of the other possible changes the game of tennis might benefit from.

If I could wave yet another magic wand over the sport, I would like to see more opportunities for play at the net. Perhaps we could install a rule that says, “After the first two shots from each player in a rally, both players are obligated to come to the net.” That would make the game more interesting, we’d have lots of old fashioned serve and volley. Just put a gun to their heads and make them get their little butts up to net.

For me, this is the purist way of tennis. I grew up at the tail end of the Pancho Gonzalez era, I was in college during the Rod Laver-John Newcombe-Stan Smith round of play, back when everybody came to the net. It was how I learned the game. My father walked me onto our public court at Nibley Park in Glendale, California, with his old wooden Dunlop. “This is what the game is all about,” he told me. He proceeded to teach me the serve. From there it was an easy hop to learn about playing the net. You can’t do one without the other, that was his attitude.

Almost as an afterthought, he taught me the forehand, then the backhand. It was a crucial progression in my learning the game. I developed an overwhelming love and respect for the power of the serve. How could you NOT win, if you had a good serve and you got in quickly to the net. This was the magic formula I thought to win consistently in tennis. I would practice my serve against walls for hours at a time, chipping it, slicing it, driving it. Along with that I hung out at the net a lot, spending hours with people who were happy to try and drive balls right through my navel. It was wonderful. I felt insulted if I had to hit a forehand. My serve would wipe out most girls, and if they actually managed to get a return back, I was ready to gut them at the net. I was a vicious little Serving Monster.

Somewhere along the line, this Swedish kid wandered into the party, and he pretty much stood the game as I knew it on its ear. He was sure easy on the eyes, but things started to change drastically. Topspin became my least favorite tennis word.

Can we go back to those purist days of serve and volley? Should we? Often, when you hear commentators describing matches, they give advice like, “He should be moving in more,” or as McEnroe is fond of saying, “Good things happen when you move towards the net.”

And yet how many players actually take that advice? Not many. But I maintain it is the proper way to play the game. Tennis IS serve and volley. Sorry Rafa.

I was so pleased to hear recently that apparently Roger Federer wants to win at Wimbledon strictly serving and volleying. Shall we hold his feet to the fire on that one? Not that we need to. I suspect Roget is one of those purists too.

– – – – – – –