Bleacher Report - Articles by Vinny Do

How Rafael Nadal Maintains His Head to Head Record Against Roger Federer

Vinny Do — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:57:36 -0400

After hearing the news that Nadal has pulled out of Wimbledon, I was dissapointed as much as I was excited. On the one hand, Federer has improved his chances by fifty percent; on the other hand, he has been deprived of bettering his head to head record against Nadal.

It seems as if Nadal has always managed to time his head to head against Federer. Earlier during their Rivalry, they rarely met except on clay. This enabled Roger to effortlessly collect his grand slams, but to always come up short on clay. All their other matches were also played on clay, allowing Nadal to significantly boost his record.

Then, as Nadal started improving on other surfaces, Federer was diagnosed with mono. During this weaker period of Federer's, they kept bumping into each other on surfaces such as grass and hardcourts allowing Nadal to improve the record once more.

Now, suddenly, as Federer is coming into something of a resurgence in creativity, Nadal goes into hiding once again, first by losing in the fourth round at the French, then by pulling out of Wimbledon when Federer obviously has the mental advantage.

Their rivalry has a wave like formation, yet it seems as if their head to heads have come at a time that benefits Nadal rather than Federer. Look at the way Federer could have taken revenge after Wimbledon at the US Open.

Where was Nadal? He didn't turn up. And then at the Australian Open, he turns up once again just at the right time to plant those demons in Fed's head.

Federer did a good thing ultimately at the Australian Open. As uncomfortable as it may have been to watch, he exorcised his demons right there in front of the crowd. Months later, he beat Nadal in Madrid and then then of course, took the French Open.

If this rivalry is to ultimately determine their greatness, then why does Nadal only show up when it's convenient to him?

In the end, these two champions can't be judged on their head to head. Federer's greatness can't be judged based on his ability to beat Nadal and Nadal's greatness can't be judged on his ability to beat Federer's records. No two lives are equal.

If Tennis Players Were Rock Stars: Who Would They Be?

Vinny Do — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:21:53 -0500

Tennis players are a lot like rock stars. They all have a certain voice. Who would your favourite tennis player be if they were a rock star.

Roger Federer: John Lennon. Just greatness all round, from songwriting to singing to leadership.

Rafael Nadal: Carlos Santana. Virtuoso skill and grit; enough vibrato to make you go wow!

Lleyton Hewitt: Bon Scott from AC/DC. Both Aussies, and wear school uniforms.

Serena Williams: Tina Turner. Simply the best, and those hmm...thunder thighs.

Marat Safin: Bon Jovi. The looks and the women.

Andy Murray: The guy from "The Darkness." Looks like him, scruffy. Slim.

Andy Roddick: Any boy band member. But I'm thinking Brian from the Backstreet boys, can hit the notes, but rarely anything special.

John Mcenroe: Bob Dylan. They are both magicians, but couldn't give a hoot what anyone else thinks.

That's all I could think of. Feel free to come up with some more.

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray To Contest the Big Four Next Year!

Vinny Do — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:51:51 -0500

No one knows what will happen next year for the rest of the ATP tour, but one thing is for sure, four big-names will be contesting the four big tournaments. Followers of this year's tour need no explanation: Nadal, Federer, Murray and Tsonga...okay, okay...it's Djokovic.

The four finalists of this year's slams will battle it out again next year. No one knows what the results will be, except the French. Nothing is guaranteed in life except a tombstone and taxes...and Nadal winning the French Open.

Federer fans will be disappointed once again that the great one didn't win the French Open in 2009. Nadal fans will almost be bored at him lifting another trophy.

Hey Federer fans, if you watched the 2008 finals, you can't really fancy Federer's chances of beating the Clay Hammer.

When it comes to the hard courts, the field has been blown wide open: four players open. Murray, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are all racket to racket when it comes to the hard surfaces.

Federer is still ahead of the field in terms of skill and experience on hard court, but his health and fitness is now a major concern. A few years can make a lot of difference. What once healed over night now sets you back five days!

All four are capable of taking home the hard court tournaments but I can't really see anyone other than Tsonga with the firepower and streaky-ness to maybe upset one of them. (Possibly Djokovic.)

At Wimbledon, I really can't see anyone other than Federer and Nadal, once again, in the finals. My guess is that Federer will get sweet revenge. He will know better than to let Nadal get a lead of two sets to love.

What are your predictions for the slams next year?

Why Can't Roger Federer Win Three Set Matches Anymore?

Vinny Do — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:44:06 -0400

Roger Federer is still in a slump, not a grand slam slump, but a slump nevetheless. This slump has to do with three set matches. For some reason, the "Great One" can't find a way to win these matches against decent competition.

He recently collapsed again in the third set of the Madrid semi-finals against US Open finalist Andy Murray. I have no doubt that if this was a Grand Slam and a five set match, the result would have been slightly different. Federer needs more than a Master series nowadays to propel him into the edge of his abilities. Three sets, it seems, isn't enough.

Tennis is a strange game. Mental freedom has a lot of affect on a person's shotmaking ability. With five set matches, it seems as if Federer feels he has all the time in the world to win a match. This is evidenced in his Grand Slam performances. However, without this freedom, he often cramps out and loses to a younger opponent.

Federer has yet to win a Masters this season. I don't know if he considers this a major black spot on his productivity this year, but it has to be surely puzzling or frustrating. We will never know whether his skills have truly eroded until he really starts to flop in Grand Slams.

Right now, we can only assume that his motivation level only simmers in non Grand Slam competition. But, imagine that the Wimbledon finals were only three sets. The score would have read Nadal 6-4, 6-4 and we would have been deprived.

Men's tennis needs to be out of five sets; that is the true test of a champion tennis player. Three set matches are like an abridged novel, okay, but not always enthralling.

For now, I can only consider Federer a great five set match player. His performance in three-set matches leaves more than a little doubt in this writer's mind.

Michael Jordan's Tenure with the Washington Wizards: Did it Affect His Legacy?

Vinny Do — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:38:02 -0400

Every sports star fails sooner or later.

Even though Michael Jordan pronounced in many commercials that he had failed many many times, as though none of us really realised this point.

To him, his tenure with the Wizards might not have been a failure, if not for the sacking at the end. His failings in life began when he wasn't drafted into his high school team. We, as spectators and fans, never felt those failures. We saw only success—game winning shots, million dollar endorsements and championship rings, not to mention a slew of other awards and accolades.

To his fans, MJ was immortalised when he hit that final game-winning shot. For many, including myself, it was the greatest moment in sporting history. Yet, MJ still had the itch.

He came back with the Wizards—and yes, we forgave him for looking a little odd in that uniform. His body, though still in great shape, had the touch of the middle-aged about it. He was still great, in bouts, but he never captured our imagination like before. In fact, some of us were a little embarrassed to see him out there.

It looked a little strange somehow, as if a golden statue already in its case was suddenly called upon to work again.

Michael Jordan's competitiveness, such a pivotal aspect of his personality, was still on full display. Only now, it seemed to lack a bit of perspective. The fact that he came back shortly after the September 11 attacks didn't help matters.

It seemed as if that sort of fiery competitiveness was okay, even great, during one's younger years—but as one got older, it seemed as if he should be moving on to other ventures. Basketball had already given him everything, but he still wanted more.

Nevertheless, MJ remains a basketball God. As a person, he is perhaps wiser for having made the move to the Wizards.

As fans, we wanted to live in fantasy. But Michael Jordan, throughout the fantasies others have conjured about him, has always remained a practical person. He will move on from the failures.

We're still trying to move on from him.

Roger Federer and the Evolution of Tennis

Vinny Do — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:38:15 -0400

Every sport (in fact, every facet of life) goes through cycles. These cycles are there because they serve the evolution of a particular life form. If you look at tennis as a particular form of eco-system, then you can see that it too goes through it's particular cycles.

Remember back in the McEnroe, then Edberg/Becker eras? These players were the superstars, the artistic geniuses. Why did they come about? Because that style of serve-volley tennis could win games! Evolution is a survival-of-the-fittest. Birds evolved from reptiles so that they could survive and compete. Tennis is the same way.

There was a period of time when the serve-volleyers dominated; then the big-hitters came along; belting the ball flat from the back of the line. These players proved that you did not need artistry or finesse or much of an imagination. You just needed to hit the ball hard.

Courier was one of these players. Agassi was another. These players inspired a certain generation of players. They were thought to be the next generation of superstars. It never really happened.

Young tennis players were perhaps afraid to adopt the serve-volley style against this sort of aggressive baselining. I think they looked at the speed of the balls and thought, why bother trying?

Therefore, this necessitated a certain kind of evolution. It created the archetype of Federer who perhaps became the first true all-rounder: the player who is truly able to combine the best of all styles to create a unique and complete style.

From this archetype, there now exists many other players beginning to form; some are already starting to take shape. Djokovic, Murray and Gasquet are all players with Federer-like qualities; able to strike the ball with so much spin that it creates a volley type of effect. Why volley when you can stretch your opponent out with just the power of your spin and flicks?

Federer has already proved that players that are strictly base-liners, i.e., Andy Roddick will probably never outplay. If you're gifted, strong and fast enough like Nadal, you could definitely outgut him, defensively corner him.

However, in terms of the all-round player, this new generation has yet to match Federer in both experience and skill development. Players who sometimes play more defensively are able to beat Federer.

So, as you can see, there really is no such thing as a weak era in tennis, no matter what era we're talking about. Players evolve so they can beat the players in front of them. Whether we consider them boring or one-dimensional is our business. They're out there to win games.

Is the Muse a Sports Fanatic?

Vinny Do — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:28:24 -0400

Each writer has a muse. Is that muse a sportstar? I'm inclined to think so; he definitely smells like one; a little hairy perhaps, a bit of odor; only comes out to play when he feels as if he is fit enough.

The word muse comes from the Greek word for song. That is befitting, since a song, unlike words, is a moving thing. Sports is also a moving thing. Like Frank from the show Everybody Loves Raymond once said, "Put on the game." Reply: "What game?"

"I don't know. Somebody's gotta be hitting something somewhere."

That's the nature of sports. It's a constant thing; something's always cooking up, half-baked, ready to be released to the world. The muse—he's a funny guy, likes to smoke a cigar.

Is that why we like to read about sports, and ponder, fantasise? Is that how we lure the muse out. Sometimes we like to read about a game afterwards, just as much as we like to watch the actual game.

Everybody has a muse. He or she likes to chew the fat. I'm convinced the muse is a sports fanatic.

Michael Jordan, Where Art Thou?

Vinny Do — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:39:32 -0400

Having just written an article about why Roger Federer is better than Michael Jordan, I am suddenly reminded how much I miss the great man. Michael Jordan was truly a once in a lifetime basketball player. He had it all: charisma, talent, drive, athleticism. He drew me into the sport like a deep gravity centre, and the NBA hasn't recovered since he left.

Michael Jordan transcended the NBA to the point where one feels somehow cheated after his departure. A great sports star makes you want to act, speak, and play like him/her, and Michael Jordan did this like no other at his time. "Be like Mike" was a walking slogan for many Michael Jordan fans.

I'm that rare (and some would say honey) sports fan that is particularly drawn to sports in which there is a star that transcends. He literally has to be a walking god. Therefore, I watched Michael Jordan's later career as closely as I now watch Federer's. The man never failed to disappoint—statistically or otherwise.

However, there was more. A measureless thing. Beyond words. They called him "Air" for a reason. Something was absent in Michael Jordan when he played basketball (fear). A quietness. A calmness. He was a hole in the universe through which the Greater flowed. In basketball, when this happens, the effect is mesmerizing. Ten people on a basketball court, and one man drawing your eyes in. A flower amongst weeds.

10 Reasons Why Roger Federer is Greater Than Michael Jordan

Vinny Do — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:25:49 -0400

This should set off a few fireworks!

I am a big fan of both superstars, but Federer has come to mean more to me than MJ ever did. Here's why:

1) Federer dominates by himself. This means he is responsible for every minute on the floor.

2) Federer has never cheated on his wife/girlfriend (or has no reports of it thus far). Don't think it'll ever happen.

3) Federer speaks four five or languages, with the potential to learn more.

4) Federer doesn't have problems with gambling.

5) Federer doesn't need Bugs Bunny to help him promote products.

6) Federer is a guy to have a cup of coffee with. He's more relaxed. Jordan is intimidating and would be in a rush to get to a game or something.

7) Federer hasn't come out of retirement (twice). He makes the most of what God gives him.

8) Federer would be a better basketball player than Jordan as a tennis player.

9) Federer hasn't tried to play more than one sport professionally.

10) Federer never punched a guy out in practice. Steve Kerr could back me up on that one!

11) It's a free country!

Federer vs. Nadal: Not One, but Two Rivalries

Vinny Do — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:06:29 -0400

A lot of people talk about Federer and Nadal as having one of the greatest rivalries the sport has ever seen.

A lot of people point to the dismal 6-12 record on Roger Federer's side as the reason why he shouldn't be anointed as the greatest.

Looking at their rivalry a little closer, we can see that they actually hold two different rivalries.

On the kingdom of clay, Nadal is playing in his own world. Nobody has ever seen such dominance. It is as if he is genetically engineered for clay. As of 05/05/08, Nadal had won 102 of 103 matches on clay since early 2005.

This is utter dominance; his sole loss was to Federer at Hamburg. Federer stubbornly reaches the finals of all these clay tournaments, only to face the tennis looping machine known as Rafa Nadal.

On other surfaces, Federer is 5-3 against Nadal, including 2-1 in Grand Slam Finals. This argument has been put forth before, but if Nadal had been more consistent on hard courts and Federer been crappier on clay courts, the head to head would be much more even. Put it this way, on clay courts, there is no rivalry. Nadal dominates through and through.

Federer, despite his baseline game, has the mental position of being a serve-volleyer. He relies on the angles created with his loopy shots to nail the opponent. This just isn't achievable on clay from the back of the court against Nadal.

Nadal on the other hand, is the classic counter-puncher who will struggle on a faster court against someone truly aggressive. This was demonstrated at his Grand Slam losses to both Tsonga and Murray. It is a pity that Nadal hasn't met Federer in more surfaces other than clay. That is definitely the more thrilling rivalry.

All in all, when looking at the great rivalry between these two Champions, it is important to distinguish the two. Clay tennis is a different game; even Federer acknowledges that. Nadal has consistently alluded to Federer as being the greatest ever, and I don't think that is just an attempt at humility.

He understands that Federer has been handicapped on clay; that the rivalry could never be a true one due to the distinguished greatness of the two players.

Let's all hold our breath for the next match in: The Rivalry of Federer-Nadal on courts other than clay.

Federerlosophy 101

Vinny Do — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:07:31 -0400

What is Federerlosophy?

Federerlosophy is a new term that I have coined. Federerlosophy is for the millions of fans out there who extract meaning and purpose through the prism of Roger Federer.

This does not mean that we extract meaning through his personal life; it is his tennis career that we are interested in.

Roger Federer on the tennis court exemplifies Zen. He also exemplifies a lot of other things truly religious. In fact, I would say that Roger Federer, as a tennis player, is nothing short of a spiritual teacher.

We have all heard commentators talk about the calm and serene nature of Federer on the tennis court. He is truly in the present moment.

He uses only enough energy to meet the demands of the moment. That, I believe, is the reason for his success in best-of-five set matches, namely Grand Slam tournaments.

His opponents fight themselves; they fight the present moment. Federer plays in the moment of surrender to the now. This is no quasi-philosophy. Watch him play and you will see the truth of it.

Have you ever seen Andy Roddick play Roger Federer? Of course you have. The contrast is almost comical.

Federer serenely hits winner after winner while Roddick seems to almost expend all his mental energy fighting himself. His biggest enemy is himself; or more accurately, his self that exists apart from tennis.

Roger Federer is fully himself on the tennis court. You could take away his name for all he cares. All attention is on the ball and how to hit it into the damn corner.

Other great sportsmen have also had it; Michael Jordan was one. Federer seems also to have it in his personal life, too; that, I think, is the reason why he attracts fans of a different kind.

Hey, but let's not kid ourselves. You can Zen out all you want. At the end, if you don't win, then there's no point really; you're better off finding something better to do with your time.

You have to have the gift, too; Roger has it in spades, enough to fill out a crater on the moon.

We also have it in spades; just not in tennis maybe.

Game, set and match!

Why Roger Federer Should Never Play Pete Sampras Again!

Vinny Do — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:15:37 -0400

I hope this somehow gets back to Pete Sampras. I'm dreaming; but here's why Roger Federer should never play Pete Sampras again.

Federer has gone beyond playing in the ATP tour; he is now playing for his legacy and his legacy only. That is undeniable fact, even though if I were Federer, I wouldn't want this weight on my shoulders. Playing Pete Sampras in this case is the ultimate nightmare.

Sure, the majority of tennis experts would say that these games are only for fun. But what about the largely ignorant public who do not know any better?

Might this just pique their interest, and make them wonder how the hell Pete Sampras almost manages to beat Roger Federer? Might it make them think that this era is weaker than it actually is?

This era, nor the recent one (by which we mean Roddick, Hewitt and Safin) is not weak; far from it. Federer made them look weak. The new era in perspective is not doing that much better against Federer save Nadal. In five-set matches (meaning Grand Slams) Federer is next to impossible to beat. Anyway, back to Pete.

I have a lurking suspicion that somehwere in Pete Sampras' pysche there is a tennis ego that says beating Roger in these games is beneficial to him in the "Who is the Greatest Player in History" argument.

Federer seems a little bit unassuming towards all of this. But look at Pete Sampras' face above. I don't mean to paint him out as a devil, but there is definitely a strong drive to beat Federer in these exhibition games.

The fact is: whether you believe it or not, these games carry weight. Somewhere in some history book in the future, some idiot will detail the fact that Sampras has BEATEN Federer in an exhibition game (five years out of retirement).

So Federer: concentrate on those Slams, and let's let these exhos slide if Pete invites you to another one; it may be the best thing to do for your legacy.

What's the point of playing in a game where you can't kick arse because it'll cause indignity to your opponent? Isn't that what you're programmed to do?

By the way, Pete is a great champion. In fact, the second Greatest Player of All Time.

Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw!s

Roger Federer and the Meaning of Life

Vinny Do — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:49:42 -0400

There isn't much happening in tennis but the Davis Cup. Federer, having said that the 'Olympic Gold' was his inspiration for the US Open, is probably seeking out some more inspiration.

For the "Fed" fans out there, our lives are perhaps also in need of some inspiration.

What is it about Roger Federer that makes someone want to pick up a pen? Is it the fact that we must go through an arduous effort to come up with superlatives? Probably. It is a challenge for any writer to write about something that is perhaps beyond words.

Having inspired us all with his US Open win, "Fed" fans are all looking for that next jolt of inspiration. I will attempt to provide some here. Let's face it, "Fed" fans, we all had that element of doubt about him winning that US Open.

Whether we had to watch him on television or Google him, didn't we all just fear that a title would read "Federer bows out of the US Open!" Along with writers emphatically carving his gravestone.

However, he conquered the young ones, and we "Fed" fans all once again firmly, believed, yes, we had made the right choice. We gave hope to what's still valuable in this world.

Our world is corrupted by many things. Tennis is a wonderful escape from it all; the same way music is or a great novel.

When someone like Federer comes along, we literally have the archetypal hero in the midst of that kingdom. His story is so captivating it draws millions of people in and somehow gives us some meaning.

We can all learn from Roger Federer's US Open win. There may be dry bouts in our lives; but if we are already complete as artists or sportsmen or whatever it may be, nothing can take away our ability to once again compose a masterpiece. The trouble of course, is completing ourselves; but that comes from within.

Federer is leaving a cliffhanger for us all. We are in the 13th chapter. Might there be an 18th or 19th chapter? Who knows? But, whatever happens, he will keep inspiring us all to write the next chapter of our own, personal lives.

Roger Federer: The Son of Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg?

Vinny Do — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:23:49 -0400

Being a child of the late 80's and early 90's, I grew up watching Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker.

I was a massive fan of Edberg's, and he was probably one of my first childhood idols. I never felt confident watching him, though; it was as if his weaknesses were always obvious to me: rickety forehand, exaggerated serve, etc.

This was especially true whenever he faced Boris Becker. Becker was a much more naturally gifted tennis player, but had a bad temperament, and as his autobiography revealed, bad addictions to sleeping pills.

Stefan Edberg was very similar to Roger Federer in his absolute commitment to the game; both had steady girlfriends and even temperaments on court. I know Federer wasn't naturally like Edberg; his temperament was closer to Becker's initially.

It leads me to conclude that Roger Federer is the DNA link between Edberg and Becker. If somehow the two were forged into the one person, with a strain of Pete Sampras, what would emerge is a player exactly like Roger Federer.

Think about it. Federer's serve is a little bit like Edberg's; both rely on accuracy and topspin rather than sheer power.

Why doesn't he volley? Because he has developed a groundstroke game much like Becker (heavy topspin) with good use of angles. He also has the power and athleticism of Sampras.

They say genius is the ability to take what's ordinary and represent it to us in a way that's extraordinary. Federer took players in his day and bred them to create a new genre. That's his genius.

10 Things You'll Never See Roger Federer Do

Vinny Do — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:39:09 -0400

1) Bang on his chest like Djokovic and his tribe. Too much class and not big enough a chest.

2) Appear in a sex scandal video. Not the type to film his lovemaking and too devoted to his girlfriend.

3) Play in a band. We've heard him sing and play air guitar. 'nuff said.

4) Turn up for a game on sleeping pills. Boris Becker: this one's for you. Roger cares too much about his legacy to waste his talent like that.

5) Play Pete Sampras in an another exhibition game. Don't prove me wrong on this Roger; these games are good for Pete but potentially disastrous for you. Can't kick arse—will look bad. Can't lose—look even worse.

6) Beat Rafa Nadal on clay at the French Open. Big Federer Fan; but saw him get thrashed at the French. Not a pretty sight.

7) Cry on John McCenroe's shoulders. Mac tried it, but Federer walked away.

8) Break a tennis racquet. This is because we know that Federer is cheap. He'd rather save the racquet and not pay a fine. No, it's also because he is a classy sportsman.

9) Write an autobiography. Woke Up. Played Tennis. Went to sleep. Played tennis. Turned on the TV. Watched Tennis.

10) Read this article: It's all done in good humour. We love ya!

Predictions for the Australian Open 2009

Vinny Do — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:07:13 -0400

The US Open is over. Federer is once again King of Slams. I can't help but start looking towards the next Grand Slam; even though it's a bit premature at this stage.

With the way things are looking, it looks as if Federer might just tie Pete Sampras' record in Australia.

Being an Australian myself, I must admit that the Australian Open seems to have less prestige than the other Slams.

Whether the cause of this is less tradition or less money, I don't know; but one thing I do know is that the players seem to celebrate at the moment of victory with much less emotion. It's probably the laid-back nature of us Aussies.

Nevertheless, the Australian Open tends to bring out different things in Federer. I don't think it brings out as much grit in him as Wimbledon and the U.S. Open do. He is much more prone to upsets here.

Still, I think he is hungry for another Australian Open. Of course, he will have a major challenge from both Djokovic, Murray and Nadal.

Djokovic should be the big threat here. He'll be looking to defend his title with his posse of unkempt supporters. Last year's semi-final was not pretty, with lots of gorilla-type chest-banging.

This year, look for Federer to be more emotional. Nadal is a sleeper in this one. Nobody really expects him to win this one. I can't help but think that Murray or Tsonga or one of the other hard-court princes will knock him out.

My bet is that Federer will win his 14th Slam here and tie Pete Sampras' record.