Why Roger Federer Didn't Win The US Open in 2009

Monday 14th September, 2009 - Roger had (predictably) made it to another final at Flushing Meadows. The topic came up at work: "Will he do it?" my friend asked me. I thought about not replying, so offended was I by the very question. But out of politeness I said, "Course he will. There's only one man who can look Roger in the  eye in a Grand-slam final... and that man barely managed to win six games in the semis. This is all Roger's." As we now know, I was wrong. But only just.

So what happened? Well, most people would say that Del Potro played really well and deserved the win as he beat Roger at his own game. But that's too boring, too obvious and too gracious for me. I like to go a little deeper. My view is that Delpo won because, well, Federer didn't. It's clear - to me at least - that the only time Federer gets beaten in a big match like this is when he doesn't play like Federer. There's a precedent - Roger's final at this year's Australian Open. Where was the free-flowing, all-court game we saw reach its zenith two rounds previously against none other than the aforementioned US Open finalist? A double-bagel? In the quarter-finals of a Grand- slam? Against the (then) world number 6? Are you serious? That match was vintage Federer - overpowering, outplaying and outlasting his younger opponent with his superb shot-selection and huge ground game. But there's plenty of articles on that performance. We're here to consider what caused the Swiss Maestro to have that fifth-set meltdown just as he did in Melbourne seven months before against the tenacious Rafael Nadal.

The match in New York started normally enough - Federer took charge against the first-time Grand-slam finalist and was rewarded with the opening set. Then stuff happened. Like in Australia, Federer's serve deserted him, making it all too easy for the tall Argentine to attack the second-serve with his blistering forehand and enormous reach. This got to Federer, but I imagine at this point he was thinking he still had enough skill elsewhere to win. The keenest fans amongst you will have probably thought the same, as you may remember our hero still managed to take a set off Rafa whilst serving at around 30%. This is monstrous. However, other things happened in the second set and, frankly, most of these have been written about too. Juan Martin took far too long to challenge and continued to do it even more when he saw that it was riling the World Number 1. We all saw him look up at his coaching box, who encouraged him to challenge at that late stage. And plus, who gives a stuff if a bottle fell off a chair, there was no chance he could have ever returned that serve. So it was at this point Federer had his rant at the umpire and never seemed to settle down. Despite all of this, I am certain Federer is not too precious to let these things get to him enough to lose his 40 match winning streak in New York and give up the chance for a record-equalling sixth straight title. He can grind victories out in tremendous fashion too (see the Wimbledon 07 victory - Rafa's infuriatingly slow play and over-reliance on Hawkeye were not enough to take him to the title that time). Above all else, I think it was the great man's own less-than-stellar performance that got to him the most.

Key to this was his serve. He served at around 50% throughout that match and this includes 11 double faults, which are astonishing statistics when you consider how close the match actually was. If you take all of the double faults in a row, they equate to two whole service games erased from Federer's numbers, plus 3 opportunities to force a third break. He was giving it to him on a silver platter, and it still took everything the young man from Tandil had. Some may say the quality of the opponent forces this low service percentage as Roger feels he must paint the lines with both serves to conquer them. This may be partially true, but Roger's serve is always aggressive - fifty aces in this summer's Wimbledon final, anyone? And as the man said himself when questioned  about his low service percentage in the Australian Open final, "Rafa concentrates on getting his in, I like to win points with it." (And for the pedants amongst you,  it may not be a precise quotation). In any case, we now know why Federer struggled with his serve Down Under - because of a back injury that saw him take time out shortly after the tournament, and not because he was 'scared' of Rafa's return. So why any different against Delpo?

Juan Martin was lucky. I don't mean that he didn't deserve the win - he's a terrific champion. But he's lucky Roger wasn't himself that day. We've all gotten angry at ourselves for not being able to do something we ought to be able to do more naturally than breathing. For Beethoven, it was writing symphonies. For Da Vinci, it was painting masterpieces. For Federer, it is winning tennis matches. But he could not find his rhythm that day and it got to him. He lost control and got angry with himself. He must have looked over at his opponent during change-overs and thought, 'You're a lucky guy, you know that? This shouldn't be happening. This is not the real me you're seeing! I've crushed you six times in a row! I'm not Roger Federer today!'

Once Roger had seen that he couldn't get it together in this particular match, it just got harder for him. This must have lead to him not being able to concentrate on what exactly he needed to do to win the match - he may have been hoping (like us) that the magic would return at any moment. There were flashes of it, but not enough: he wasn't keeping the ball low enough, he was feeding the giant too many forehands and he was not bringing him in. It's true that Del Potro's game matches up well to Federer's, just as Rafa's does. But surely it doesn't mean he's got the measure of him? Professional motor-mouth and one-slam wonder Pat Cash has said recently that, provided he is fit, Del Potro will never lose to Roger Federer again. Hmm. Really? Reading into that opinion a little bit, it seems to suggest that Del Potro's best form is enough to beat Federer's best form. Well, not for my money. Not in a million years. But what does everyone else think?

Finally, given this temporary psychological torment, it's hard to decide whether or not it amounts to too little self-belief or too much on Roger's part. Was he too trusting of his own miraculous skills? Or was he being too hard on himself? Either way, it can be explained by Roger's constant quest for perfection. If I was well aware that I was capable of even a fraction of Roger's staggering feats of genius, style and resilience and then, all of a sudden, my game abandoned me, I would lose my rag too. And boy how I'd lose it. But then, it's a trade-off I'd make in an instant. So in that regard, if Roger can let this one go, then I guess so can I.