Roger Federer: The Streak is Over, Long Live the Streak

The Streak has ended at 23.  Roger Federer lost to Robin Soderling in the quarterfinals of the French Open, snapping his beyond-imagination streak of playing in 23 straight Grand Slam semifinals.  Only Chris Evert, who played in - get this - 34 consecutive semi-finals, has ever had such a long streak of sustained excellence.

It is without question the second most remarkable achievement in the career of the greatest tennis player of all time. The most remarkable? He's played in 20 of the previous 23 major FINALS and 18 of the last 19. He has 16 majors, all since 2003.  Think about it. His first victory was just 7 years ago.

The last time Federer failed to make it to the semifinal at a Slam was six years ago at the French Open. Since then, Federer advanced to every semifinals, a run of almost six years. The Streak led to 139 Grand Slam victories and 14 Grand Slam titles.

Coaching and Sports

Yesterday, Rafael Nadal defeated Mardy Fish in the US Open. The four-set match took about 2 hours, forty minutes. Earlier, Andy Murray needed almost 4 hours to win his match against JM Del Potro. No player was allowed a formal visit with a coach during either match. In fact, tennis does not allow in-match coaching during sanctioned events at any time. It's an idea that resonates internationally and should be more widely considered in the US.

In tennis - like soccer - athletes are charged with the responsibility to face their opponent, size up the situation and make appropriate changes based on their own skills and fitness. What a concept. Yesterday the no-coaching rule resulted in two intriguing matches with plenty of ups and downs for each player. In fact, tennis often produces incredible drama and tension during its major events. Tennis coaches, it would seem, have done their jobs very successfully without having to thrust themselves onto the stage with their athletes. Not that they wouldn't, given the chance.

Try watching sports, American-style. A pitcher walks a batter, and now we get to see some manager or coach lumber out of the dugout with the sole purpose of telling the pitcher, "you have to get this next guy out". Really? 50,000 fans in person and possibly millions on television find that compelling drama? Think what it would be like if the managers were forced stay out of the game, except to make lineup changes.

And football? basketball? It's become unusual to see a football or basketball game clock run off even 2-3 minutes without a timeout. The insertion of coaching into the flow of games has gotten to the point of ridiculous. It just seems silly for athletes to be told to "throw strikes' or 'play better defense'. What happened during practices that those messages weren't delivered and received?

Useless Elements in Sports

On the useless theme, there are inconsistencies, traditions and and anomalies in sports that should be banished to the "ash heap of history" (Thank you Ronald Reagan. Although he MAY have been referring to something a little more serious).

Get rid of:

• Second serves in tennis (a "do-over" in pro sports? C'mon)
• Off-sides in hockey. The most exciting play in hockey - the breakaway - is virtually banned. Why? Do what soccer does, make the last non-goalie defender a moving 'blue line'.
• Offensive goal-tending in basketball.
  
• Time-outs in any sport in which coaches are allowed to talk with players. What were they doing in practice that they need a refresher every five minutes? It's an insult to the players and it's totally changed the game. I think all the time-outs that have been added in recent years only help teams with deeper benches. Which is why the BCS basketball teams love them.
  
• The 'two club-length' rule in golf. How many times have we seen a golfer hammer a drive wide of the rough and behind a tree only to determine the lie to be unplayable. The they get rescued by the two-club length rule which gives them plenty of distance to find a better lie. I seem to remember Ernie Els winning a US Open this way. These guys get free clubs ... hit it where it lies.
  

What do you think?

Double Fault: Get Rid of the Second Serve

The Roger Federer - Rafael Nadal match will go down as one of the greatest in tennis history. It could have been improved with a rules change.

To anyone watching, the level of play was as great as ever seen, regardless of the circumstances. Given the circumstances - Wimbledon and a changing of the guard at the top of the sport - the two best players in the world put on a tremendous performance.

The defending champion - as great and classy as any player in history - put up a magnificent fight. When faced with match points, Federer conjured up some of his most sublime shots. After losing the first two sets, Federer seemed the better player, but just barely. And when it appeared that Nadal might, just might, crack under the rejuvenated Federer's relentless pressure in the fourth and fifth sets, the Spaniard translated some of his most creative clay-court shotmaking to the slick grass of Wimbeldon. He earned his championship through high-level play and relentless energy.

But as great as it was, the match underscored one of the most fan-challenging aspects of tennis. The length of late-in-major matches often undermines the brilliance of the play. Federer and Nadal dueled for almost five hours. Add in the rain delays, and the match lasted almost 6. In fact, since there are no lights at Wimbledon Center Court, the final point was played in near darkness, a situation not immediately apparent to the audience watching on television due to the ability of cameras to pick up ambient light. It's conceivable that the match could have been suspended, to be continued the next day.

A solution to the challenge of interminably lengthy tennis matches is relatively straight-forward. Eliminate the second serve. No other sport allows a do-over the way tennis does. In fact, there was a time that tennis was dying as a result of the Ivan Ivaniseivic's of the world (the 1980's version of Andy Roddick). Smash and volley tennis was boring to watch and hard for the average fan to enjoy. There was little drama and long periods of what amounted to inactivity. Thank goodness Andre Agassi came back to demonstrate that it was possible to return 120+mph serves. But even at this year's Wimbledon, players ole'd serves knowing that, with two chances, they'd probably win their own.

The risk-reward of a single serve means that the server has to choose to go for an all-out smash or hit a somewhat safer offering. It also means that the returner has every reason to believe he can break his opponent at any time. Without having to wait for second serves, matches will have more action, possibly be shorter and probably have more drama.