So where does Roger go from here?

This comes a little late. It’s been a week since Rafael Nadal vanquished Roger Federer on the red clay at Roland Garros. Roger had raised hopes of a gladiatorial contest after taking the second set but there was only one winner from there on. Nadal was always in control and the normally composed Federer was hopelessly error prone and crumbled under the relentless onslaught of his Spanish adversary.

The French Open remains the Gordian Knot for Federer. He has now been a runner-up twice to Nadal and their head to head record continues to blot his impressive resume. The biggest concern for his supporters would be the fact that he is back to square one as far as untying the knot is concerned.

For most part of the season though, there was hope. Federer had claimed after losing to Nadal at Monte Carlo, that even in defeat, he had gleaned valuable information about beating his nemesis. What followed in the wake of the the boast , appeared to be a watershed event in his pursuit of Nadal. Federer dumped his coach, Tony Roche, and staged a remarkable comeback win over Nadal at the Hamburg Masters. It appeared he had finally unearthed the secret of beating Rafael. The debacle at Roland Garros shattered any such notions.

So where does Roger go from here?

Does he join the list of Wimbledon greats never to have won the French? The likes of Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Connors. Or does he cut the knot like Alexander to cement his legacy as the greatest player of all time.

The good news is that Roger differs from all the aforementioned players in the sense that his failing at the French is not a capability issue. Those guys were never very good on clay, even though McEnroe and Edberg came within a set of the French Open title. He has been the second best player on clay the last two years; second only to the Great Rafael Nadal - a player who could potentially become the all time greatest player on clay. And as he showed at Hamburg, he has all the weapons to beat Nadal as well.

The disturbing part is that, while Nadal transforms into a fearless warrior when he faces the Swiss champion, Federer becomes a victim of his own talents. Accustomed to dismissing opponents with the minimum of fuss, he loses himself in a dogfight, almost looking disinterested when the going gets really tough. And until and unless he can learn to grit his teeth, get the adrenalin pumping and be prepared to die fighting on court, Nadal will continue to have the upper hand.

But how does Federer get there?

He needs someone who can work with the mental side of his game. Not someone to teach him about forehands and backhands, he knows all about it. He does not need a traveling psychologist or mind trainer or anything. He needs to be with a guy like Brad Gilbert or Jimmy Connors; guys who can teach him how to fight. Or even someone from outside of tennis. Say someone like Steve Waugh. It might sound preposterous but so was Alexander’s method of untying the knot. And unless he learns to fight, the smart money would be on Nadal ending Federer's dominance on non-clay majors, rather than the other way round.

Sphere: Related Content