Tennis Frontier

Blog

Czech Republic Repeats in Davis Cup

For the second straight year, the Czechs have won the Davis Cup trophy, this year defeating the host team Serbia, 3-2.

The Serbian team was hamstrung by the losses of Janko Tipsarevic (injury) and Victor Troicki (serving a ban for missing a drug test), forcing them to play the unknown No. 117-ranked Dusan Lajovic in two of the singles matches. Having the world No. 2 Novak Djokovic on their side was not enough for Serbia to repeat their 2010 victory.

For the Czech Republic, it was again their stalwarts, Tomas Berdych and Radek Stepanek, who were the two-man show all weekend, as they had been in defeating Spain this time last year. When the teams split the singles rubbers on Friday, the Czech’s decided to press Berdych-Stepanek, a proven combination (14-1 total Davis Cup record as a doubles team) into service again on Saturday, when it seemed that the doubles might decide the eventual winner, given the weakness and inexperience of Lajovic. Somewhat controversially, Djokovic was not substituted in to play with Nenad Zimonjic (at 37, the oldest man ever to play in a Davis Cup final), who teamed with Ilija Bozoljac, in what was indeed a losing effort against the crafty Czech pair. Today, Djokovic defeated Berdych to assure a live rubber for the 5th match. And just as he did last year, Stepanek clinched for his team.

[divider]

Scores:

Novak Djokovic d. Radek Stepanek: 7-5, 6-1, 6-4

Tomas Berdych d. Dusan Lajovic: 6-3, 6-4, 6-3

Berdych/Stepanek d. Bozoljac/Zimonjic: 6-2, 6-4, 7-6 (4)

Djokovic d. Berdych: 6-4, 7-6 (5), 6-2

Stepanek d. Lajovic: 6-3, 6-1, 6-1

Photo credit: elPadawan (Creative Commons License)

November 17, 2013
Down the T #4: David Nalbandian Interview

Our latest “Down the T” features an interview with David Nalbandian, the 2002 Wimbledon finalist, winner of the 2005 Tennis Masters Cup, and numerous other titles, including the 2007 Madrid and Paris Masters.

[divider]

Tennis Frontier: So to start, after a very successful junior career, you turned pro in 2000, and won Basel and Estoril in 2002, by age 20. What was it like to attain such early success, and have you noticed that it’s very rare now?

David Nalbandian: The truth is that at that time I wasn’t very aware of the magnitude of the things that were happening to me in my first steps of my career. Nowadays I look back and I remember those times with pride and affection.

[divider]

TF: You have played across several different eras of the game, by your own description. How would you characterize the evolution of the game in the time you played it?

DN: When I started playing, the game was less physical. Today the players are more skilled, meaning hit the ball from both sides with almost the same accuracy. Back then, players used to have a good serve or a good back hand or a good fore hand. What I see now is that players are much better from this perspective.

[divider]

TF: What are your most memorable wins/losses?

DN: The win that I remember with greatest pride is the final match of the Masters in 2005, when I won against Federer in 5 sets.

And the most painful losses I remember are all the series of the Davis Cup that we couldn’t achieve, especially the final series we played in Mar del Plata against Spain. That was the one that hurt me the most.

[divider]

TF: Our members tend to cite Madrid and Paris 2007 as an apex of your career. You became the first player ever to defeat Federer and Nadal in back to back tournaments. You also beat players such as Berdych, del Potro, Djokovic, and Ferrer on the way to those titles. It was an amazing run. Up until then your year hadn’t been stellar. What happened? And what happened just after, in terms of capitalizing on those wins?

DN: At that time I was playing my best tennis. It was an exceptional end of the year. Besides I finally could play without injuries at all.

[divider]

TF: What was it like to play Federer and Nadal in their prime form? Not many have found the solution for them, and you have. Notably, you beat Federer at the YEC, when you were down 2 sets to love. Can you talk about that?

DN: Winning against Federer and Nadal is a very difficult task; they are two of the best of all times. To win against them it is important to play perfectly throughout the game, and during those years I was playing my best tennis. The truth is that it was very satisfactory; I remember those years with a lot of pride.

Regarding the Shanghai Masters final, even though I had lost the first two sets, I knew that I could have won those sets, so I felt pretty close. When the first set began, I knew that I could turn up side down the score, and I did it.

[divider]

TF: What players have you enjoyed playing the most?

DN: The truth is that I enjoyed playing with almost every player in the circuit. I had the luck to play in an era in which there are great players, the best in history. I remember many matches with Roger, Rafa, Marat Safin, etc.

[divider]

TF: Many of our posters have mentioned the beauty of your back-hand. Do you have an opinion about the greatest back-hands of all-time? And how do you rate Djokovic’s?

DN: I think it’s very effective. He hits the ball naturally, and the ball bounce is also very hard to read.

[divider]

TF: What was your favorite Slam? And despite best results at Wimbledon, do you think you might have done better at Roland Garros?

DN: Even though I reached semifinals in all four Grand Slams, it was at Wimbly where I reached the final game. So I have a good memory of those days.

[divider]

TF: Do you believe that the surfaces have been slowed down to the detriment of the game? Do you regret that carpet has been eliminated from the calendar?

DN: Yes, I do, even in Wimbledon. Regarding carpet surfaces, I loved playing indoors on those surfaces.

[divider]

TF: When you see what Ferrer is doing at his age, and Tommy Haas and others, do you consider that you might come back from retirement?

DN: After many years playing on the circuit I have decided to retire, since after the operation, the shoulder isn’t allowing me to train with the requirement which the circuit demands. I’m not going to play professionally any more, I plan to devote myself to my family.

[divider]

TF: Is there coaching in your future? Do you see yourself coaching Davis Cup? You have to know that there is a huge groundswell of notion that you should.

DN: I suppose that I will continue linked to tennis, but I still don’t know how. I don’t see myself as a coach.

[divider]

TF: As you leave off your career in tennis, do you have any regrets? What will you miss? What will you not miss?

DN: I don’t regret anything in my career; I always tried to give the best of me. I know I will miss the trips, being with other tennis players, the tournaments and the competition, but I’m also happy to be able to spend more time with my family, my daughter and friends. Not winning the Davis Cup is the only thing hard to swallow.

[divider]

Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Carine06

November 12, 2013
What’s Next?

The Barclay’s ATP World Tour Finals, Final

[2] Novak Djokovic def [1] Rafael Nadal 6-3, 6-4

[6] Verdasco/Marrero def [1] Bryan/Bryan 7-5, 6-7 (3), 10-7

Hello.

I know. It’s been awhile. And I’m sorry about that. But I did bring excuses. Some of them are even good ones. Others are distinctly less good-– such as, for instance, would you believe that a few days after the US Open final a convocation of eagles flew in through my office window and made off with my laptop? Or that in October a lamentation of swans invaded my living room and ate the TV? A bevy of larks broke in last week and took off with all my pens? Or, wait, here’s one: How about that I kept trying to watch Asian Swing tennis after work but the Tennis Channel was only showing matches from 2012? (Bingo!) See, a whole flock of excuses. But suffice it for now to say: I’m back, and just in time to say goodbye to another tennis season, to close the book on a heroic tale so many tennis fans fervently hope is only half-finished. That’s right — I’m talking about Fernando Verdasco’s doubles career.

The Spaniard and his compatriot, David Marrero, defeated the No. 1 ranked Bryan brothers 10-7 in the super tiebreak to claim the WTF beribboned doubles cup. The celebration and victory speech from the Spanish pair could hardly have been more emotional and touching, even by Verdasco’s extraverted, emoticoned standards. I only got home to my TV (a special swan-proof model) in time to see Verdasco win the final point of the match (a serve), and even without knowing anything about the dramatic arc of the match, I was immediately caught up in the exuberance of the moment. First, Verdasco fell joyfully to the ground. Then he got back up, leapt into his partner’s arms and hugged him with all four limbs before running to the sidelines to hug an entire century’s worth of Spaniards. Verdasco then wrote twelve stanzas of free verse poetry on the TV camera lens, and joined forces with Marrero—who became emotionally overcome while dedicating the victory to his late grandfather—to give the season’s most heartwarming acceptance speech. It was a lovely moment, and made me wish I’d seen the tennis that inspired it. (After the trophy presentation both men were stripped from the waist up, interviewed, and made to declare their intention to, first put clothes on, and then go eat Spanish food in South Kensington. Huzzah.)

I did, however, see all the points of the thirty-ninth chapter in the Nadal v. Djokovic rivalry. So far as tennis rivalries go, it’s hard to fathom how anybody could still argue against this one being among the very best. The pair has met fifteen times since 2011, and all but two of those encounters were tournament finals. (Both other meetings were semifinals: Roland Garros and Beijing in 2013. The match on the Paris clay was made of such high-quality drama that I wouldn’t be surprised if, going forward, it’s frequently misremembered as the tournament final.) Sure, the six-hour-long Australian Open final in 2012 could be accused of being a too-drawn-out slug-fest, but the rivalry has matured considerably over the past two years, with both players (and their ever-present support squads) devising new and more intricate ways to torture each other on the tennis court.

Unfortunately, no matter how good the rivalry, an individual tennis match tends not to soar to the outer-reaches of greatness when one half of the participants forgets to bring his forehand to the court. Novak Djokovic, ever the generous competitor, tried to make up for Rafael Nadal’s absentmindedness by playing super incredibly well from pretty much everywhere on the court, but no matter how hard he tried, he couldn’t quite compensate for Rafa’s missing forehand. (Even Djokovic isn’t quick enough to return his own serves.)

The world No. 2 held easily to open the match, then broke fairly easily, then held again. By the time we reached 3-0 in the opening set Novak had won 12 points to Nadal’s four, and Rafa’s game was looking as if his second serve might have run off with his forehand (probably to South Kensington to eat gambas al ajillo with Fernando). When Djokovic nearly broke the Spaniard again in the fourth game, the Serb decided he had to change tactics if there was any hope of elevating this edition of The Rivalry off the plywood floor. So, Djokovic started to make strange errors on his own forehand wing, and the backhand one, too. And it worked like a charm. Rafa held, and then broke back, and then held again.

By now—we’re at 3-3 in the first, in case you’ve lost count—Djokovic realized that if he went on smothering his forehand and forcing his backhand wide, he might actually not win the match, especially considering that Nadal had begun to play somewhat more assertively and that wary, feral gleam was now visible in the Spaniard’s eyes. Since losing the final of the Barclay’s ATP World Tour Finals would have been no good at all for Djokovic’s twenty-something match win streak (tennis players tend to prefer their streaks to their rivalries), he resumed playing incredibly well and quickly went back to winning the match.

The highlight of the day came on break point at 3-4 on Nadal’s serve. The point, which you must watch if you haven’t seen it, featured stunning movement and hands from both men. But it was Djokovic who hit the eye-popping lob and Djokovic who won the point, and therefore it was the Serb who was entitled to claim the bonus loot, aka “the manna of destiny.” In the next game, Nadal won a point almost as good to go up 30-15 on Djokovic’s serve—Rafa slammed a muscular forehand down-the-line and followed it up by a no-look jumping backhand volley winner—but Djokovic got a lucky net cord the very next point and therefore collected double manna, which he promptly cashed in for an ace on set point.

From there the Serb looked like he was made of stars, while Rafael Nadal kept on fending off break points like a man who refused to be forced to earth. (Nadal defended 8 of 11 break points, compared with Novak’s 2 of 3.) But despite Nadal’s best psychological efforts, and perhaps because of several forehand errors, Djokovic still managed to break early in the second set. It should be said that Rafa brought his full measure of grit to the contest—fighting off two championship points before sending one of his trademark forehands just wide on the third— but he simply did not have the game today, while Djokovic had more than plenty. The final score was a surprisingly straightforward 6-3, 6-4.

After the match, as I waited patiently for the ATP Steering Committee to take their places near the trophy table, and for a nice lady named Rebecca to walk the trophy out onto the court, I took a moment to reflect on the state of men’s tennis today. Yesterday’s WTF semifinals featured Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Stanislas Wawrinka. Federer has career 77 titles, Nadal has 60, Djokovic now has 41. The 27-year-old Wawrinka has collected four. Nadal eased by Federer in the first semifinal, despite being outplayed in throughout most of the first set. Wawrinka was psychologically overmatched from the start and didn’t offer Djokovic anything like the fight he showed in Australia or New York. And while I agree with Darren Cahill that Roger Federer is likely to have a better 2014 than his 2013, he is 32 years old. Who’s next?

Even if Nadal didn’t play anything like his best tennis today, both men belonged in the final ATP match of the year. They’ve been several cuts above the competition for the majority of the season. Nadal will finish the “most emotional season” he’s had as the No. 1 ranked player in the world. Djokovic will be right behind him, at No. 2, with a Major title to defend in two months’ time. As exciting as it’s going to be to watch and see where 2014 takes this rivalry, it’s hard to imagine who is going to be able to hang in there with these two. Healthy versions of Murray, Federer, and del Potro? Pierre-Hugues Herbert? Martin Alund? Whomever he is, he’s going to need to be very good at tennis, and even better at summoning destiny.

When Novak Djokovic accepted his WTF trophy, he thanked the London crowd for coming out all week to watch tennis. “Thank you for appreciating what we do,” he said. “It means a lot to us.” This isn’t the first time Djokovic has thanked a crowd for hanging in there through a tournament or a match. He has a way of sounding not only grateful, but also surprised that people turn up to watch him—one of the greatest tennis players in the game—play great tennis. Nadal and Djokovic will both take home more than a million dollars for their London efforts, but it’s still the human recognition that counts. That’s heartwarming. Not quite a Fernando-Verdasco-hug level heartwarming, but nice nonetheless.

It’s also why I would like somebody to tell Djokovic—and Rafa and the rest—that I have plans to fly all the way across the Pacific Ocean to turn up to watch them play tennis at the Australian Open. I’m sure it will mean a lot to them. It also means that I will be able to write to you all about it. And that means a lot to me.

Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Marianne Bevis

November 12, 2013
Direction and Magnitude

World Tour Finals, Final

(2) Djokovic d. (1) Nadal, 6-3, 6-4

Novak Djokovic tonight defeated Rafael Nadal in the final of the World Tour Finals, an unlovely sentence to commemorate a forgettable match. It was the third time in the last four years that the top two players have closed out the ATP season, but the first time it has been these two. I suppose it had to happen eventually, since they seem to have played finals everywhere else. Consequently everyone knew what to expect, especially given the glacial surface: an extended defensive slog based around the repetition of readily identifiable patterns. As with minimalism – which people persistently confuse with simplicity – great complexity is achieved by the reiteration of basic blocks, not to mention great length. No one expected it to be simple, and no one expected it to be quick.

I confess to feeling some relief when everyone was proved wrong, at least when it came to length. When two players face each other thirty-nine times – an Open Era record – it’s inevitable that not all of them with be classics, although one hoped that the last match of a memorable season would turn out to be a bit less forgettable. Alas, Nadal commenced nervously and never entirely settled. Meanwhile, Djokovic was fierce initially – tearing out to a 3-0 lead – then meek for a while, and then forceful all the way until the end. He seemed to hold break points in most of Nadal’s service games, but only reciprocated the favour once to be broken back in the first set. Whatever hope this kindled of a competitive match was lessened by the consideration that the quality wasn’t high enough that you’d necessarily want to see more of it, then doused entirely when Djokovic lifted again. The point with which he re-broke Nadal to claim the eighth game ranks among the finest defensive efforts I have ever seen, a masterpiece of thrust, parry, loft, and touch. Djokovic’s bellow afterwards was long and lusty, and certainly justified. Most of us will never do anything nearly so masterful in that atmosphere for those stakes.

Djokovic broke early in the second set – more shouting – and threatened to do so repeatedly as the set wore down. Insurance breaks are nice, but aren’t necessary if you never face calamity (like all insurance, really). The Serb was never again threatened on serve, rarely conceded the baseline, and ended up with atypically excellent numbers at the net. Nadal was almost always on the move, and even when he could set his feet on a forehand found it hard to shift his opponent for long. The length on his groundstrokes was a constant problem, except for Djokovic.

In truth Djokovic was the real problem. Afterwards Nadal conceded that his opponent had simply been too good. On this surface, playing at his best, Djokovic truly is. The homogenisation of the court surfaces has helped ensure that these two end up facing each other at nearly every tournament everywhere, and that when they do they barely have to alter their basic game, but between them the surface still matters. Nadal is better on clay, and Djokovic is superior on hard court, assuming both men play at their best. In both cases the gap is closing, but it is still there.

Since the beginning of his career, Nadal fading through the late part of the season, has come to feel like a structural requirement of men’s tennis, although it says a lot about his magisterial 2013 season that losing in the final of the year end championships can be construed as a letdown. It is also a testament to his evolving mastery of all surfaces that one’s definition of “late” has had to be pushed further and further back as the years rolled by. Initially that late part of Nadal’s year kicked off very early — once the main clay tournaments were over. Admittedly that was long ago, when he was very young. Soon he learned to commence fading after Wimbledon, with the results petering out by the US Open. In 2008 he became a factor in the later stages in New York, and has never since failed to reach at least the semifinals, assuming he turns up at all.

Yet the period after the year’s final Major – pollen-choked Australians find it difficult to call this the “fall season” – has remained unaccountably lean. In his entire career he has won just two titles after the US Open, and one of those was in 2005 in Madrid, enabled by an extravagant collapse from Ivan Ljubicic. That remains Nadal’s only indoor title, since the Ariake Coliseum roof remained open through his Tokyo title run in 2010, his other career title in what northern hemisphere fans obdurately refuse to term “the Australian Spring”. But this year one could be forgiven for assuming the usual rules don’t apply, especially on hard courts. Up to and including the US Open, Nadal hadn’t lost a tournament on that surface. After that he contested four events – the same ones as Djokovic – and for all that he seemed more determined than ever to capture the few important titles that have eluded him, and didn’t win any. That’s nothing to be ashamed of, of course. Winning these things is really, really hard.

Djokovic, of course, won them all, though in the process lost his No. 1 ranking. The extent to which those two events are connected is open for debate. Some felt that losing the top spot firmed his resolve. There’s probably something to this. After a strong start to the year Djokovic’s form grew patchy, even within matches. Transcendent sets would be interleaved with uncharacteristic dreck, as he would unaccountably lose his way. Since Beijing, however, these periods have grown fewer – there was a bizarre one in the Shanghai final – and he has looked more like the Djokovic who swept through the first two thirds of the 2011 season. (Surgically combining the first part of his 2011 season with the last part of his 2013 yields a year of near perfection.) One shouldn’t forget he almost did exactly the same thing last year, but for that strange loss to Sam Querrey in Bercy. Last year he was chasing down Federer for the No. 1 spot, successfully as it turned out. Grand purposes certainly sharpen his focus.

On the other hand, it’s probably pointless to search for additional reasons for Djokovic to play superbly on hard courts. At his best he is without question the world’s best player on that surface. His current streak of twenty-two matches isn’t the longest by any means, but it is hard to top for quality. It includes twelve victories over the current Top 10 (aside from the injured Murray), including two wins each against Nadal, Federer, and Wawrinka, and eight in less than two weeks. That’s hard to top. The appropriately renamed Brad Drewett Trophy, bedecked with blue streamers and bestowed amidst a blizzard of confetti, was a fitting reward.

Thus ends the latest edition of the World Tour Finals. It certainly wasn’t the most memorable installment, from any point of view. Perhaps it was the absence of Murray, but the entire week has felt slightly deflated. The Sky Sports commentary was certainly less demented as a direct result. Recall their tedious tut-tutting during last year’s semifinal over the London crowd’s divided loyalties, particularly Sir Ian McKellen’s unforgivable decision to sit in the Federer box. Sir Ian was nowhere to be seen this year. No doubt he’s chasing monsters in New Zealand. One wonders whether the Scot’s absence was a deciding factor in keeping other celebrities away. Last year there was a cameraman tasked with capturing Kevin Spacey’s every facial tic, and apparently no one could get enough of Pippa Middleton. This year there were endless footballers and one of the mannequins from One Direction. Still, you can’t have everything.

Photo credit: Marianne Bevis (Creative Commons License)

November 12, 2013
Djokovic Tops Nadal in London to Win Year-End Title

Novak Djokovic, who has rediscovered his drive and motivation since losing his world No. 1 ranking seven weeks ago, exacted revenge again today against the man who took it from him by beating Rafael Nadal convincingly, 6-3, 6-4, to take the ATP World Tour Finals title. This was Djokovic’s third title at the year-end tournament, and Nadal’s second loss in a final, having never taken this trophy.

The Serbian came out strong from the start, while the Spaniard started looking nervous, and was broken in his opening service game. Nadal got the break back, but was committing too many unforced errors on his trusty forehand side, and too many double-faults, trying for a bit too much to combat, futilely, in the end, the Djokovic A-game.

Djokovic, looking nimble and assured throughout, broke again early in the second set. Nadal kept his nerve, fending off championship points in each of the last two games. He held serve despite having been down, and got Djokovic to deuce at the last, but couldn’t hold off the inevitable any longer. Djokovic served an ace, and then a Nadal shot sailed wide to end the match.

The win evens their head-to-head this year to two wins a piece, and closes the gap on the overall to 22-17. It also sends a big salvo across the bow at Nadal for the season to come. Djokovic is gunning for him again.

[divider]

Fernando Verdasco and David Marrero beat Mike and Bob Bryan for the doubles title: 7-5, 6-7(3), 10-7. They were the surprise Spanish duo to pull it off, passing the higher-ranked Spanish team of Granollers/Lopez, who beat the Bryans at this tournament last year.

Photo credit: Marianne Bevis (Creative Commons License)

November 12, 2013
Djokovic Defeats Wawrinka to Set Showdown With Nadal

In his most convincing win of this ATP World Tour Finals, the Serbian Novak Djokovic beat Stan Wawrinka of Switzerland to set up the final that most had anticipated, with Rafael Nadal having won his semifinal earlier in the day.

The 28-year-old Swiss has been enjoying the most successful year of his career, and was making his debut at the ATP World Tour Finals. He came out looking to start strong, threatening Djokovic’s first serve, and breaking his second. But the Serbian broke back immediately, and then seemed to kick things up a notch to counter any significant threats that Wawrinka threw at him. In the end, Djokovic blew past him, 6-3, 6-3.

The final will be played in London’s O2 Arena tomorrow at 8pm GMT. It will be the 38th meeting between Djokovic and Nadal, a record, and their sixth match of 2013. Nadal leads on the year 3-2, though the most recent win went to the Serb.

Photo credit: Marianne Bevis (Creative Commons License)

November 11, 2013
Nadal Denies Federer in London

In the 32nd meeting of this storied rivalry, Rafael Nadal prevailed over Roger Federer, 7-5, 6-3.

The first semifinal of the day started with each man playing well and holding serve. They traded breaks three times in succession in the 9th-11th games of the set, which Nadal served out at 6-5. The second set was more squarely on Nadal, who broke Federer’s serve in the 6th game, and again with the Swiss serving in the final game at 3-5, to close out the match. It was the Spaniard’s first win over the former No. 1 on indoor hard courts.

This was Federer’s 12th consecutive year playing in the ATP World Tour Finals, which he has won six times. For Nadal, it is his fifth appearance, and only his second time to make the finals. He lost in the finals to Federer in 2010.

Photo credit: Marianne Bevis (Creative Commons License)

November 11, 2013
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Semifinals – Schedule of Play and Results

Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Day 7 – Semifinals: Schedule of Play (Scores added as known)

CENTER COURT — Start 12:00

[6] David Marrero (ESP) / Fernando Verdasco (ESP) d [3] Ivan Dodig (CRO) / Marcelo Melo (BRA) — 7-6(10), 7-5

Not Before 14:00

[1] Rafael Nadal (ESP) d [6] Roger Federer (SUI) — 7-5, 6-3

Not Before 18:00

[1] Bob Bryan (USA) / Mike Bryan (USA) d [2] Alexander Peya (AUT) / Bruno Soares (BRA) — 4-6, 6-4 [10-8]

Not Before 20:00

[2] Novak Djokovic (SRB) d [7] Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) — 6-3, 6-3

November 9, 2013
Andre Agassi and Stefanie Graf on the Mysteries of Success

“It is an illusion to think that setting goals and achieving them makes you happy.”

By Stefan Wagner.

Reprinted with permission from The Red Bulletin.

[divider]

THE RED BULLETIN: Together you’ve won 30 Grand Slam tournaments, earned fortunes, achieved worldwide popularity and business success. You raise millions for children’s charities, look after young tennis players, have a strong marriage and are bringing up happy children. Everything you touch seems to be successful, but what was it like after the end of your tennis careers? Did you have to relearn what success is? A tennis tournament begins on a Monday, the goal is victory in the finals on Sunday: that’s relatively straightforward.

STEFANIE GRAF: And on the Monday you get the new rankings, which tell you where you stand. When I was still playing tennis, a friend once said to me, “You’re so lucky, you can say that you are the best in something.” Today I understand better than ever what he meant. This phrase provides a certain kind of security. A doctor or a therapist never knows exactly how good he really is, there’s always the question of whether or not he could be better.

Was it easier for you playing sport than it was afterwards?

SG: No, there were different questions. For example, whether the success that you have achieved is actually what you wanted to achieve. For a sports player these questions go even deeper with age.

ANDRE AGASSI: I have my own view of success.

Which is?

AA: I believe success is an illusion.

But you won all four Grand Slams, over $31 million in prize money and were world number one. That is an illusion?

AA: Success in itself, as an end in itself, is an illusion. Whether it’s in sport or a charitable foundation. Let me put it this way: in the last year, Stefanie has helped 1,000 children with her Children for Tomorrow foundation – and even if it were 2,000, there are still umpteen thousand out there that she can’t help. Would you describe that as success?

It would be crazy not to.

AA: It wouldn’t, because you describe something as success that isn’t actually success. In tennis I learned that the final isn’t the goal, it can’t be. That would have meant, ‘Shit, on Monday it all starts again.’

Following your logic, Roger Federer isn’t a successful tennis player.

AA: He is, of course – but not because he’s won the most Grand Slam titles, but because he’s the all-time best, which he is beyond a doubt, and yet he still tries to develop. True excellence is the person who understands that success won’t come sometime in the future, but rather here, now. As soon as I understood that, a few important things became clear: it’s not what I do that’s important, it’s how I do it. I won’t accept not giving my best. I won’t accept not wanting to be better. Every day, I have to try to be better, no matter what the scoreboard says or what the world rankings say, or how much I’ve raised in donations.

But you can’t separate ‘success’ from goals which are objectively set and attained.

AA: Yes you can. In fact you have to. Try it! Set yourself a goal, work hard to achieve it – will it make you happy? No. It’s an illusion to think that setting goals and achieving them makes you happy.

How much money have you raised in the last 15-20 years for your charity projects?

SG: I concentrate on the necessary amount year by year. In total it’s millions, many millions.

AA: For me, over the years it’s been almost exactly $175 million.

And do you know how many children you’ve helped?

SG: In the past year it was 1,000 children, which was our highest number for 15 years.

AA: Recently we had 1,300 children per year in our academy.

But you must regard that as success?

AA: Success isn’t what comes out, but what you put in. Doing things completely or not at all. Caring about what you do. When it comes to charity: invest yourself in your project. Find out how you can make something exceptional out of it. Does your fame help? Do you have to collect donations yourself? Will you have to spend time away from your children to give interviews? Then you have to do it with all your heart. When it comes to tennis: find out what you’re responsible for, and concentrate on that. Work on your fitness, on your stroke. Don’t lie to yourself and look for shortcuts. Success isn’t a result. Success is a way of living you choose for yourself.

So success is subjective, not objective?

SG: Absolutely.

AA: When you see success as a goal, you’ll never be successful. Because it becomes like an addiction, you can never have enough. Never.

But how do you measure success?

SG: By how you feel when you go to bed at night.

More and more tennis pros come to you in Las Vegas to learn from you. What can you teach these players, some of whom are world class?

SG: Actually sometimes it is about technique. Not the basics, sure, but there’s often room for tips.

You once said that you could teach a young player in 10 minutes what you learnt in 10 years. What would happen in those 10 minutes?

AA: There are a few things that are important to me, simple things. For example, that there is only one important point you play in life, that is, the next one. And that you should concentrate on the things that you can influence –you can control your attitude, your work ethic, your concentration. If it’s windy or hot or something aches or you’re tired from the match yesterday, then you have to accept it. I also try to teach young players that tennis isn’t a sport where you’ll get perfection. There’s no 100 per cent tennis. There is only the 100 per cent that is within you on the day. It’s all about bringing out your own 100 per cent.

SG: I can’t put it as succinctly as Andre, I couldn’t fit it all in 10 minutes. Also I see my task a little differently: I don’t give life lessons. I prefer listening to talking.

In Open [Agassi’s gripping and brutally honest autobiography], there are descriptions of depressive episodes, even after winning Wimbledon and becoming number one in world rankings. Was the pain of losing really stronger than the joy of triumph?

AA: Yes, and that still applies.

How do you deal with it?

AA: I’ve learned to enjoy every moment. A good day with a major final, that’s a good moment. But you have to learn to value all the moments before that led to it. The moment of victory can’t be better than the moment of preparation. Learning that is pretty much a question of survival for a tennis player.

SG: Andre’s right. The feeling you have after a victory fades so quickly. What we call success has a terribly short half-life. You would have been amazed if you’d seen Andre or me after a major victory. There was some relief, maybe, but no rejoicing or excitement. After a major victory there’s an emptiness, a routine, ‘Let’s go home, we’re done here.’

That sounds really sad.

AA: Oh, it is. Learning to see things differently is utterly essential. The day in the weight room, on the training court– that has to count just as much as finals day at Wimbledon. Not understanding that can be dangerous, because you make bad mistakes. So you think, for instance, that money is important, but money is nothing more than an expansion of opportunities for spending your time. Money can’t make you happy. When you’re happy with the opportunities that come with less money, money completely loses its significance. Money is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Exactly the same as what you’ve been describing as success: Success isn’t an end in itself. Success doesn’t mean winning.

Not many world-famous sportspeople would say that. How does an athlete come to think like that?

SG: Life is a good teacher, whether you’re a tennis player or not. You just have to ask yourself one question and answer it honestly: is the life I live the life that I want to live?

Did you already have that attitude during your career?

AA: At 27 I was number one in the world, I had won Grand Slams, I had taken drugs, I was divorced, I fell to number 141. I was unhappy. And I had to make a decision: do I keep playing tennis or not? That was the moment when I thought, even if I didn’t choose tennis for myself, because my father did that for me, perhaps tennis will give me the opportunity to get my life together. To do that I needed some meaning in my life. The school I built was that meaning. And so tennis had a purpose, tennis allowed me to create and maintain something which is really important. Suddenly it was all completely simple: tennis became a tool with which I could do something I really wanted to do.

You said that fear is a great motivator. Given your life story, what you suffered as a child through fear and pressure – did you really mean that?

AA: The fear of losing is an important motivator. Fear of not making the best of a situation.

It seems as if you raise your children without fear. With your charities you try to make the lives of others easier.

AA: But the fear of losing stays. That doesn’t go away. Ignoring the fear doesn’t help. I have a fear of failing my children: that fear is good and right, because it keeps me alert.

Is there such a thing as a life without fear?

AA: We humans can love and hate, we feel joy and fear, all these emotions are within us. It would be wrong to try and turn one of them off. Quite apart from the fact that it would be impossible.

Can you raise a child to be successful in the conventional sense of the word?

SG: No.

AA: But you can screw it up.

SG: That’s something we’re really afraid of, that we screw up with our kids.

AA: You can teach someone to put the scoreboard ahead of everything. But that would be wrong. Children have to learn to push themselves every day. For themselves, not for anyone else, certainly not for a scoreboard. When you see the result on the scoreboard, that’s a bonus. But what’s on the scoreboard shouldn’t be the meaning of life. Life is bigger than any scoreboard.

www.childrenfortomorrow.de

www.agassifoundation.org

Photography: Longines

November 9, 2013
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Day 6 – Schedule of Play and Results

Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Day 6: Schedule of Play (Scores added as known)

CENTER COURT — Start 12:00

[3] Ivan Dodig (CRO) / Marcelo Melo (BRA) d [5] Aisam-Ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) / Jean-Julien Rojer (NED) — 7-5, 3-6 [11-9]

Not Before 14:00

[6] Roger Federer (SUI) d [4] Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) — 4-6, 7-6(2), 7-5

Not Before 17:45

[1] Bob Bryan (USA) / Mike Bryan (USA) d [8] Mariusz Fyrstenberg (POL) / Marcin Matkowski (POL) — 4-6, 6-3 [10-5]

Not Before 19:45

[2] Novak Djokovic (SRB) d [8] Richard Gasquet (FRA) — 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-3

November 8, 2013