Following Fed - A tale of eventually watching Roger Federer play

In a foreign land where cricket isn’t the most watched and hence most broadcasted game, I had to watch something on TV. In the same foreign land, the Australian Open was going on. Oh yes! I got a chance to lift the trophy during one of the promotional campaigns. Not that it meant much to me, I would have preferred holding on to the cricket world cup trophy.

Roger Federer of Switzerland stretches to play a forehand in his fourth round match against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga of France during day eight of the 2014 Australian Open at Melbourne Park on January 20, 2014 in Melbourne, Australia.

After telling some of Federer’s stories, my friend advised me to watch some of Federer’s videos. In the absence of options to kill time, I did so.

First thing that impressed me about his game was – it was quite like VVS Laxman, full of magical wrists. I was awed by his placement and timing. The way he chopped the ball was amazing.

In most games, fans aren’t impressed by just victories of their heroes; it is the manner in which those victories are achieved. As a neutral observer, I would rate Ponting’s Test runs way above Shivnarine Chanderpaul’s. I’ve never seen a batsman playing with so much arrogance and authority. I would rate Shane Warne a much better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan as Warne’s bowling wasn’t just about taking wickets – it was more about dramatizing the event taking the wicket. Mind you, I’ve mentioned the term, neutral observer.

You watch to get entertained and not for just score lines.

I could see this quality in the player I had heard so much about. Next thing I did was to watch what I had heard so many times – Federer’s match, on TV of course.

Being a complete rookie in tennis, I had to rely on commentators and my friend to judge how he was playing. With every good shot he played, my friend jumped and told me, “See, this is Roger”. With every point he lost, the commentators said, “A younger Roger wouldn’t have made this mistake. I hope his back is fine”.

There was an online survey done and results were shown on TV, “Do you think he is playing at his usual best?”. More than 25% said no; 25% didn’t agree that he was at his best when he was winning the third set in a row?

As Sanga would have said, “Expectations.”

I made a few comments, “But he wouldn’t get these kinds of points against better players. Is Tsonga a good player?”. Tsonga did make a lot of unforced errors.

“He isn’t playing well today. But Roger is back” was the reply I got.

It was as if everyone wanted Federer to play well and win. Commentators weren’t really worried about the points; they were more interested in the quality of Federer’s game – if his backhand was fine, if he was placing it well, if he was serving fast enough. They were also talking about how he was coping with new racquets, if he was fit enough and the ultimate question – has he still got it in him?

My heart went out for Tsonga; he was looking like nothing but a toy and at his cost, everyone was enjoying what could be termed as orgasmic pleasure generated by the sporting brilliance of a great.

This is he thing with heroes – we just don’t want them to win, we want them to win in style, like heroes. In cricket, you want your team to win with a six or a pace bowler to send the stumps flying back and celebrate as if he owned the batsman. In movies, you don’t want your heroes to kill the villain without giving him a full bashing – the ‘tere liye to mere hath he kaafi hain’ phenomena.

You want politicians to be ideal and yet achieve results at a super-fast pace. Not just the destination, but the path they follow matters too. For fans, the manner in which their heroes achieve victory is as important as the victory itself.

At match point I said, “Well, he has got three match points. Game over.”

“No. Once Tsonga has beaten him from this position. He has also lost to Djokovic once. It happens with him sometimes. He loses from this position”, my friend said looking visibly nervous.

Oh yes! Another quality which is a must-have in crowd pulling heroes – although we always want them to win and win in style, they should also carry an element of fallibility. They must, because if they don’t, they become too boring – you know they would always win. What’s the fun in following the game if you know you wouldn’t lose? The uncertainty of the result is what keeps you glued.

Finally, he won.

I told a friend of mine on chat, “For the first time in life, I saw him play today. Some of his shots were audacious.”

“Audacious? It means bold. Watch Nadal play, he plays audacious shots. Some of his shots look like falling out of the court but they always fall inside. That’s audacious. Federer is more about elegance”, was the reply.

Need I tell you whose fan he is?

Looks like even though Federer has grown too old for the game or so I have been told, the rivalry among the fans is still alive.

Hope to see a Nadal-Federer match soon!