Sports Then and Now

Roger Federer is used to winning at the U.S. Open

Do you remember what it felt like when Emmitt Smith hung up his cleats,  no longer hustling in the Dallas Cowboy backfield?

Or how the “Windy City” sighed when the Chicago Bears could no longer rely on “Sweetness” to gain  impossible yardage to convert on a third down?

When was it that Edwin Moses no longer dominated the 400 meter hurdles at the summer Olympics or when Michael Jordan no longer jammed the ball home for the Chicago Bulls?

You see, great athletes not only impact themselves and their teams––they have a profound influence on the game itself, and its fans.

They push the limits and stretch former boundaries as peers and competitors learn that something new is possible and follow their lead.

The longer they play, the greater their record.

Their  time to excel on the playing field––whatever its boundaries––is limited by time because no player’s athletic life goes on forever, despite rumors to the contrary brought on by Brett Favre aficionados.

Sooner or later, the athlete cannot continue to improve and if you cannot continue to add to your game, the process of subtraction begins––you began to move toward “less.”  You settle for “good” rather than maintaining “great.”

For Roger Federer, proving he is moving forward, adding to his game, means increasing the distance between himself and everyone else on tour.  He must add to his already staggering records to bounce back to glory again.

How many of these records are reachable by anyone currently playing tennis today, including Federer himself?

Can Federer himself improve on perfection??

Read the rest of this entry →

At the 2002 U.S. Open Pete Sampras showed Andy Roddick that he still had some game.

Tennis is one of those rare experiences that can offer that one-on-one contest of physicality, skill, strategy and endurance, and all without the combatants having to get punched in the face. Watch closely enough during this year’s US Open and eventually a match, probably in the men’s draw, will eventually be described using a boxing analogy.

But not all bouts live up to expectations, in the sense that they are not closely fought affairs that teach us about human will. Sometimes one player unexpectedly reaches a plateau where he can’t be touched, and the contest’s outcome is not in doubt.

It’s not dramatic, but it’s still breathtaking.

Drama was what tennis fans wanted to see in the quarterfinal match between Pete Sampras and Andy Roddick in the quarters of the 2002 Open. Residual memory from the previous year’s event, particularly its quarterfinal rounds, was still strong: Sampras and Andre Agassi had played the most commemorated match of their career, a four-set clash of styles that ended in four tiebreaks, neither player having his serve broken. Roddick had taken on fellow young gun Lleyton Hewitt, the eventual champion, on the next night and fallen in a tight five-setter. Read the rest of this entry →