Definition of kamikaze

1

: of, relating to, or resembling a kamikaze

2

: having or showing reckless disregard for safety or personal welfare

It is very safe to say Roger Federer is an aggressive player. In his long, long, long resume, Federer has wins like against Mischa Zverev at Halle, in 40 (!) minutes and ridiculously fast wins at best of five (grand slams) like against Minar in 63 minutes (2005 Us Open) and against Falla at Wimbledon in 2004, only 54 minutes. His serve does help, of course. Over 11 thousand aces, 77% of 1st serve points won, 67% break points saved and 89% service games won. The man is good.

20 grand slams out of 31 finals is also pretty decent, as he shares the slam record with his two biggest rivals, who gave him most of those eleven losses. Nadal and Djokovic gave Federer some of his toughest losses and two of those are what I’d like to talk about today.

2015, Us Open:

Federer is in great form. Was tough to even break his serve. Beat Mayer, Isner, Wawrinka with ease to reach another Us Open final, his first since 2009.

Djokovic was having a fantastic year. Even though he was denied from 3 out of the first 3 slams due to a godlike Wawrinka performance at the French Open, he still had everything in his hand to win the Us Open, even if Federer was in great shape. Djokovic had already denied him another Wimbledon title a few months earlier, so safe to say he was the favorite.

The issue in everyone’s mind was a shot Federer ‘’brought’’ in, or added to his game, something very common in doubles: A return of serve that you move forward by the time the opponent is hitting the toss, a sneaky quiet net ‘’all or nothing’’ approach. The media quickly names it ‘’SABR’’: Sneak attack by Roger. What a mediatic player!

Federer may have made a little mistake there, as when he faced Novak in Cincinnati, just before the Us Open, Federer played it to perfection over two sets, as he denied Novak another time of a Cinci title. You can see him doing it too against Kevin Anderson and Andy Murray, living and dying by the sword of trying to rush points. It’s a valid strategy as you manage to make the server quite confused as to why you would put yourself in immediate danger, but also makes for quite an easier pass, if the opponent adjusts properly.

It’s hard to pick between the two in Novak or Nadal who is the best passer on tour, or maybe of all time. Federer, maybe unlucky to have these two monsters of the game constantly on the other side of the net, was always given trouble in their hands when it comes to passing shots and it’s no coincidence these two matches I’ll address are exactly against these guys.

But in the Us Open final especifically, since everything was working for Federer in terms of both serving and returning, the strategy against Novak was similar in the final. With maybe a feeling that he wouldn’t manage to hang on, for example, 4 hours of baseline tennis against Djokovic, Federer rushed everything. Aggressive returns and constant approaches to the net were met with cheeky ‘’SABRs’’, that produced one winner or two, but were also constant forms of losing points on return. The final itself was one of Federer’s worst return performances ever, converting four out of twenty-three (!) breakpoints opportunities. Even after an infamous game at 2–1* 2nd set, when Federer approached the net three times in a row and proceeded to receive three straight winners, with one passing shot and two perfect lobs from Novak, he plays a game like at 1–0* third set, managing to make two decent approaches, winning these points, but making three others which he proceeds to lose the point easily, with poor approaches and nonsense play trying to end the point quickly, on a day which Novak wasn’t exactly at his beast baseline mode! Rushing the points made Djokovic absolutely punish him with passing shots and lobs and forcing errors. Federer, who looked great all tournament, was made a fool by Novak, who played the absolutely perfect match, fighting any tactic Federer brought in.

‘’These matches and games hinge on one or two moments, moments that are defined by skill, strategy, a little bit of luck or a combination of all three. Djokovic had Federer in each.’’, wrote Chris Chase at ‘’Usa Today’’ after the match.

2008, Roland Garros

Rolling back the years. Another clay season arrives in 2008, with Federer heavily trailing the h2h with Nadal, having beaten him on clay once, at Hamburg in 2007. In 2008, they met in the final again both in Monte Carlo and in Hamburg. In Hamburg, Federer played lights out against an uncomfortable Nadal, making it 5–1 and serve. Had a set point, lost it and got broken. Then had another, which he also wasted, as he goes from 5–1 up to 5–7 down, losing the first set. In the second set, Federer does much much better, winning it in a tie break. Loses the match in three sets, but makes it very respectable, even having great chances in the first set. Even though he looked aggressive in this match, it wasn’t overwhelmingly aggressive, with decent approaches to the net and the occasional serve and volley. This match was the 2nd straight loss in 2008 and on clay for Federer against Nadal. Next up, the French Open.

We know how much of an Everest Nadal on clay is, so it either takes an extraordinary performance or a subpar Nadal to make him lose on it (Many cases both things), so Federer had his problem solving to do. Three straight Roland Garros losses, all in four sets, suggested to Federer that he was doing something wrong, or not as right, so he’d have to mix it up. And he did.

Seeing highlights of earlier rounds, Federer was super aggressive from the baseline. Played some thrilling rallies against Montanes in the 2nd round and entertaining matches against Gonzalez and Monfils, before reaching the finals again, a rematch against Nadal.

As numbers go, the unforced errors were growing every round. First round against Querrey, only 15. Against Gonzalez, 29 and against Monfils, 30. Of course the opposition is growing stronger each round, so you’re bound to make more mistakes than usual, but a number that also catches your attention are the net approaches. From 35 against Gonzalez, a very respectable Federer number, he goes to 64 (!) against Monfils, the last match before Nadal. The great number of winners, 67 (!), would suggest the match was pretty solid and the net approaching aggressive strategy was working.

So you wake up to a French Open final against the best clay courter ever and talk to your team. You decide to eat some eggs with toast, watch the best season of the Simpsons, season 5, and… hit the net every single shot against the best version of clay Nadal we had ever seen until that point… Yeah, maybe two of those decisions were right.

To be fair, Federer started from the baseline, but got whooped easily. Then, we saw the kamikaze play. With no responsibility, Federer just didn’t equal the 64 approaches of the semis because Nadal finished the match much earlier. Constantly away from Federer’s racket, the final was the most one sided since McEnroe defeated Connors conceding the same number of games Federer won, 4, at Wimbledon in 1984. The 2nd set we saw a match, but in the third, it got ugly. If you watch the deuce point of the first game of the third set, you’ll see how much of a challenge Nadal was at the moment. He’d have to play with no forehand for you to have a chance of winning a game. A rare bagel, with quite a few demoralizations on the net for Federer in the process. Federer made 18 out of 42 net approaches. All or nothing, live by the sword, die by the sword. What a painful death. To break Federer to make it 5–0, a backhand pass by Nadal. To win the match, a forehand approach miss from Roger, which, by the way, Nadal played and, guess: Made the passing shot. Nadal made 35 winners, against Roger’s 26. Rare scenario.

These two finals were a lot different, with Roger having more opportunities in 2015, on different surfaces against different, but very much alike, opponents. The common thread is, first of all, the choice of tactics, with a terrible approach to the situation, almost with disregard of the opponent. Monfils, Isner, Gasquet and Gonzalez are not Nadal-Djokovic, not even close. Whatever worked with them, won’t be the same with these two monsters.

Secondly to me is how unable or unwilling to change tactics Federer was in both finals. Ok, maybe the opportunities in 2015 suggest that a better break point conversion would do the trick, but as a famous poet once said: ‘’If, if if… doesn’t exist.’’. What if the strategy was different? Maybe these break chances would’ve been converted!

In a parallel situation, I’m reminded of a certain football coach, Pep Guardiola, who, constantly, after applying winning situations and making winning teams during a competition, will suddenly change tactics and players to, maybe, surprise the opponent in a final. I see this in Federer, who constantly tries to shake the opponent’s game with a LOT of variation with his game, which is maybe the biggest menu of variety of all time in tennis. But how to mess with two opponents that know tactics better than anyone else, who know how to adapt better than anyone else and, even worse for Roger, know your game better than anyone else?

Live by the sword, die by the sword. I swear to you, Roger, I get it. I like to end points quickly, the shame is I don’t have your forehand. But he has learned it isn’t the case against these two, hence two perfect matches in 2019 which he outplayed both but, well… we don’t talk about that here, do we?

Consistency or peaking?

Even though in points we may not be that close (9186 against 7835), the two top tier WTA players have been sharing an opinion on who’s the best.

When we watch Naomi Osaka play and swipe the Hard court slams, we settle on her. When we see Barty defending Miami and having overall consistent results, maybe we don’t give a definitive statement she is the best, but we understand more why she’s the #1 ranked.

When the ranking froze, Barty was already the #1, having won 3 titles in 2019 (One in each surface, by the way) and Adelaide in 2020, before the Australian Open, one of our last tournaments with full crowds before COVID was a thing (Can we just come back to this time…). At her home slam, she made the semi-finals, losing to eventual champion Sofia Kenin.

When points were frozen, she had 8.717 points.

Naomi on the other hand couldn’t quite follow up her amazing success winning back to back slams in 2018–19, losing 3R at Roland Garros, 1R at Wimbledon, quarter finals and 4R on both slams she was defending. That would of course see her drop a lot in the rankings. When the points froze, she had 3.625 points, at #10 in the world.

Safe to say, Naomi was on a down while Barty was on a high, as rankings were frozen. Tough.

A covid world saw tournaments cancelled and no obligation for players to travel, due to safety. Barty stayed more than a year without playing pro tennis, while Osaka changed coach and won her 3rd grand slam, at the Us Open in 2020. There, and in the week before in Cincinnati, we can say she probably played the best level of tennis she’s ever played, which is saying a lot, considering what we saw at the Australian Open of 2019!

She skipped clay (as well as Barty, who didn’t even travel to the USA) but came back in full vintage fashion, saving 2 MPs in the 4th round, at the Australian Open, winning her 4th major. The level by now is ridiculous by Naomi.

Barty also returned, but didn’t defend her semis of 2020, reaching the quarter finals. She had a huge advantage in her match against Muchova, before losing in three sets.

By now many people, including myself, were on the ‘’Osaka Team’’, meaning basically: She’d be number one if the rankings unfroze. Sure, fair to say considering her victories. Osaka could have been #1 by Miami if she made consistent results and Barty’s form remained shaky. Then comes Barty, winning Miami saving MP on her first round, avoiding a #1 change until at least Madrid, on clay. You’ll wait, Naomi.

Now, both are #1 and #2 respectively. Is that unfair?

Outside of the major HC events, Osaka has been less than OK, having the losses I mentioned and skipping clay all together in 2020, a moment she would have increased a lot of points.

Barty stepped away from tennis, but came back apparently fitter and having already an equal HC title as her #2 opponent. What’s next? Clay, a surface Naomi still has to see eye to eye.

The tour is one big mess of surfaces (in the good way), a player doesn’t reach #1 by accident. Helped by the freeze, sure, unquestionable. Barty would’ve had to play both USO and RG in 2020 to remain at #1, like the tour normally sets them up to. But, now we’re trying to find normalcy, I’m sure she’ll do just that. How did Barty get there, how did Naomi get there? With results!

Who’s the best one? May both fight for it. Consistency or peak level?

There’s clay, there’s grass, there are hard courts. Both have great serves, steady backhands and formidable forehands. The best player wins.

Game on.