Which one will come to play...Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?

After watching the Cincinnati final between Roger Federer and Mardy Fish it became obvious to me that Federers career is a tale of two Federers and more questions were left open in that final.

It is sort of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story, the tale of two totally different tennis players in one.

Dr. Jekyll is a character who represents a somewhat shy, self-concious, passive tennis player, still full of doubts about his talents, who will produce some great tennis at certain moments of a match.

Mr. Hyde on the other hand is a ruthless tennis player, without compassion. He trashes his opponents with mind boggling short scores, where five set matches would last less than three set matches (The FedererExpress), a duration that we were only accustomed to seeing on the WTA Tour.

Anyway, Roger Federer became Mr. Hyde between October 2003 and November 2007, when he won everything under the sun and the moon that he entered except Roland Garros.

In the end of 2007 'Mononucleosis' struck Mr. Hide and there Roger Federers career reverted to an in between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde tennis player and we became accustomed to not knowing which one would show up on the tennis court and the stellar mind boggling performances of 2003-2007 became more and more rare.

One blatant example of such rare transformations was the 2010 Australian Open where the worst of  Dr. Jekyll appeared to play the quarter finals against Nikolay Davidenko and lost an incredibly lackluster first set 2-6 (no motivation, no movement, no strokes, nothing, not even the service was working), at the end of that very first set Roger Federer goes to the bathroom and surprise, surprise Mr. Hide returns to the court and tore a befuddled Davidenko apart in the ensuing 6-3, 6-0, 7-5!

For the tennis fan and tennis experts this was a sad turn of events to see an athlete who almost belonged to the Greek Olympus, who was winning almost every tournament he entered, reduced to a mere earthling!

We even saw a title draught that lasted 6 months this year and the Cincinnati tournament win which broke the title draught, was far, far from Federers soaring performances of yore. Definitely a thrilling Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde tale!

So what kind of Roger Federer are we to expect at the up and coming US Open?

It is hard to predict but by the performance in Cinciannati where Federer was not pushed at all even though playing in Dr. Jekyll's mode and had a gimme draw things are going to get tough for Federer, a lot tougher!

No one can fault Roger for the 'luck' of the draw, but Mardy Fish had to play 6 hard fought matches, while Roger Federer only had to play three relatively easy matches:

R64 R Federer (BYE no match)                R64  M Fish defeats G Simon 76(4) 75

R32 R Federer defeats D Istomin 52 (WO)   R32 M Fish defeats F Verdasco 76(1) 76(4)

R Federer defeats P. Kohlschreiber WO (no match)  R16 M Fish defeats R Gasquet 75 62

QF R Federer defeats N Davydenko 64 75 QF M Fish defeats A Murray 67(7) 61 76(5)

SF R Federer defeats M Baghdatis 64 63 SF M Fish defeats A Roddick 46 76(3) 61

Final R Federer defeats M Fish 67(5) 76(1) 64

Considering that Roger Federer had a hell of time beating a very tired, worn out Fish and struggled with all sorts of quirks and problems throughout the final in Cincinnati.

What is left to consider? Dr. Jekyll played the final?

Is there room to speculate that if Roger had to play six rounds like Fish did, instead of having a first round BYE, a second round Walk Over and again third round Walkover in his first three rounds, Fish would have closed the match in straight sets? Very possible, but mere speculation, or would Mr. Hyde have played?

Independently of who would show up to play one thing is for sure, Roger Federer was absolutely not convincing in the Cincinnati final.

If we put together the Cincinnati final with the Toronto final not much can be said about Roger Federer's self congratulatory words:

‘The past year I’ve been very disappointed with my returning, I’ve played very safe the whole time and even on the first serve I haven’t been able to read the players as much, which had been my big strength. That got me thinking… After Wimbledon I had six weeks to work on a few things. On the hard courts it’s nice to play forwards and not always be defensive and let the other guy dictate. I’m happy that the hard work is paying off right away.’

Was this the month Roger spent with 'his new coach' Paul Annacone? Why does he not mention Paul?

Did Federer really put Fish under constant pressure off the ground?

Did Federer attack and pressure Fish second serves?

Were the chip and charge attacks over the net?

How many gimme volleys were missed in the seldom forays to the net?

How many times did Roger Federer serve and volley on a fast court like the central court in Cincinnati is?

How many easy passing shots were missed?

Can we believe Rogers word about 'all' of that hard work paying off?

The Cincinnati final posed far to many questions that Roger Federers Dr. Jekyll could not answer but, that I am sure Mr. Hyde from 2003 to 2007 would have largely ignored, pummeled Fish and taken the cup in less then 50 minutes!

Roger is still my favorite to win the US Open but he better come in Mr. Hydes suit or we might see a very short lived tournament for Federer, barred of course that half of his opponents do not drop out, get injured, sick or plainly quit!

Sergio Cruz 

Questions About Tennis Anyone? Feel free to ask, if I can not answer myself, I will research and find the solution to your question. Write directly to me at, cruze (@) bluewin.ch

Custom Search

Back from Tennis - Cincinnati The Tale of Two Federers! to Tennis Articles Main Section

Please login or register to add comments