By Bill Simons
LONDON—Yes, Roger Federer lost the Wimbledon final. Still, there is reason they call him the genius, the maestro, a magician. Attention: It’s a treacherous business to limit Federer’s future.
Before a 2007 fourth-round Aussie Open meeting with Roger, a young Novak Djokovic boldly crowed, “I have only three words for Federer: ‘He’s going down.'”
Roger didn’t.
After Djokovic beat Roger at the 2008 Aussie Open, Novak’s mom proclaimed, “The King is dead.”
He wasn’t.
The august London Times noted, “Federer in decline is better than practically anybody who has picked up a racket.” And that was seven years ago.
But in 2013, the New York Times claimed, “To watch Federer this summer is to listen to an opera singer who can no longer hit the high notes.”
To be fair, even Federer has doubted himself. As a very young player, when he lost to his countryman Marc Rosset, he wept and plaintively asked one of the most ridiculous questions in tennis history: “What if I never reach another final?”
No problem there. Federer would reach 131 finals, including today’s juicy Wimbledon finale. Serb vs. Swiss, No. 1 vs. No. 2, master craftsman vs. inspired artist, defender vs. attacker, the best return of serve in the game vs. the man whose serve was on fire. Federer led their rivalry 20-19. And questions loomed.
Had Novak put behind him his devastating loss in the French Open final just weeks ago? Could Roger possibly repeat the transcendent performance he gave us in his semi against Andy Murray, and thereby avenge his loss in last year’s classic five-set final to win his eighth Wimbledon and become the oldest Slam champ in the Open era?
At first it seemed that way. Slicing beautifully, his serve on fire, Roger raced to a 4-2 lead. But Djokovic—who’d survived a huge scare from the big Kevin Anderson, and silly claims that he was unkind to ball kids—overcame his nerves and a set point for Federer, fighting back to force a first-set tiebreak. There, Federer’s level dipped badly while Novak poked a pass up the line and pounded forehands. He easily won the breaker, 7-1.
In the second set, Federer proved he’s not only balletic, but a scrappy street fighter. Despite being down an incredible seven set points, he blasted down-the-line backhands and rushed the net, managing to prevail 12-10 in the longest Wimbledon tiebreak since 2000.
For one brief moment, the battle evened.
But today Roger could not give us another magic show with a torrent of winners like he did against Murray. Rather, he soon certifiably proved he’s human. In the first game of the third set, he shanked the easiest of forehand sitters that a 3.5 player could easily put away to gift a break to Djokovic.
Novak pounced. Stretching wide, playing dazzling defense, and stepping up his underrated serve at key points, he took precious time away from the greatest grass court player to have ever picked up a racket. As Justin Gimelstob explained, “It just gets to a point where you don’t know what the answer is. If you are too aggressive, you incur too much risk. If you are too defensive, he takes control.”
Before and after a brief rain delay, Novak relentlessly hunted serves and put on an almost frightening return-of-serve display. His returns were like drones that descended on the lines and grabbed Roger by the throat. Novak wouldn’t allow Fed Ex to deliver. Roger had lost his serve just once in the entire tournament. Today, Djokovic broke him four times. The Serb won scramble points and seemed to scramble Roger’s brain. Federer lowered his head as his mind seemed to run out of options. The Serb prevailed 7-6 (1), 6-7 (10), 6-4, 6-3.
Soon the man who tasted such a bitter defeat in Paris was down on his knees tasting the (gluten-free and organic, or so he claimed) grass of Wimbledon. Reflecting on his tale of two cities—Parisian tragedy, London triumph—Djokovic told IT, “If there is one thing that I learned in the sport, it is to recover fast, leave things behind and move on.”
Novak moved on to his second Slam of the year, his third Wimbledon (the same as his coach Boris Becker) and his ninth Slam, a total that outdoes many a legend, including Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors. More than anything, Novak said, “I proved to myself I could do it again … If you would ask me as a 14 year old back in Serbia trying to find my way … that this is how I was going to end up at age 28, of course, I would sign the deal and take it right away.”
Djokovic is an incredible man: a deep thinker, a comic, a one-of-the-boys joker, a humanitarian, a loving family man and so skillful at his trade.
But he is not beloved, and might not be for many a year. He doesn’t have the muscles and charisma of Nadal, the adoration of a Grand Slam nation like Murray, or the universal love of the adored Federer.
Of course, not everyone was weeping for the Swiss. Andy Roddick, who has been denied many a title by Roger, confided, “I feel as sorry for him as I can for anyone who has won 17 Slams.”
Still, millions were saddened by the defeat suffered by their beloved Roger. No, don’t even think of saying his Grand Slam title hopes have vanished. He is No. 2 in the world, and for years, supposed sages have been saying the guy is nearly washed up.
Yet today’s loss by the once mighty man touches something deep within us. As Simon Barnes poignantly suggested, “There is always a reaction when great champions start to lose matches they would have won in comfort. It seems like an insult to their own glorious past, to our own glorious memories … So we have to brace ourselves for an unfolding experience of sadness … Roger failing again to be the Roger of the glory years. [Still] respect the things that make such a man carry on: relish for the struggle, sheer love of the game itself, glorious self-deluding ambition, and behind all that, the certainty that nothing will be as good, ever again.”
