Interview with Federer book author Christopher Clarey: "Roger is a chameleon"
Journalist and book author Christopher Clarey on his encounters with Roger Federer, an early revelation and the peculiarity of Federer's tennis.
by Florian Goosmann
last edit: Apr 04, 2022, 03:39 pm
Christopher Clarey is one of the most renowned tennis journalists in the world. Clarey has been writing about tennis for more than 30 years and has since covered more than 100 Grand Slam tournaments, mostly for The New York Times. Last year, Clarey published The Master: The Long Run and Beautiful Game of Roger Federer, whichbecame a New York Times bestseller.Now it hasalso been published in German under Roger Federer: Der Maestro. Clarey has not written a classic biography here, but has also built Federer's career based on the decisive places in his life, interviewed old companions again, he brought in his Federer conversations from more than 20 years and described personal encounters with the world star. Clarey lives with his family in the USA and Paris.
Mr. Clarey, there are already a number of Federer books on the market: René Stauffer's, for example , which was recently updated. Or that of Simon Graf. How did you come up with the idea of writing another book?
To be honest: I haven't even read all the Federer books out there. But I've had access to Roger, Rafa and Novak so often over the many years that it was almost crazy not to write a book. I had so much stuff and never used it. For newspaper articles, you often talk to someone for an hour and only use five minutes of it. To trace Roger's path, his development - that's what I wanted to write. Because it also affects an entire era in tennis. I was looking for a challenge of writing this.
You have structured the book chronologically in a way, but organized it by city, key milestones in Roger Federer's development and career.
The reason for that was because Roger is so global. I am too, to a much lesser extent. Tackling the key locations book was a good hook. I've also tried to get involved myself, hopefully not too much. But we talked so many times somewhere, in cars, on buses, in his house... I also had all the old tapes of interviews, all the transcripts. It was great to mentally travel back. To see how Roger has developed, how he has changed. Or how he hasn't changed.
You spoke to a lot of people from Federer's early environment.
In doing so, I learned an awful lot. Just about his early days, how he was treated at Ecublens, how Peter Carter polished him , where he came from, why the two of them bonded so well. I also didn't realize how fragile everything was for a while. I also talked to people I hadn't had anything to do with before, like Christian Marcolli, the performance psychologist Roger worked with in his late teens. Plus with Yves Allegro, Peter Lundgren or Marc Rosset. Originally I wasn't sure if I wanted to delve that deeply into his early life, but I found it fascinating. Considering how important Pierre Paganini was and is to Roger! I had never spoken about Roger in such an intense way with Paul Annacone before, nor with Andy Roddick. It was interesting what the guys say about him from today's perspective.
Andy Roddick was one of the victims of the great Federer years - he would have won a few more majors without Federer. What kind of feeling did he convey: admiration? Envy? Bitterness about missed opportunities?
Andy had mixed feelings. He had his time when he was at the top, he was number 1, won the US Open. But yes, it was hard for him at times. What he really has to chew on is the Wimbledon final from 2009. He knew it was his big chance because he played well. I liked Andy's comment after Roger lost the US Open final to Juan Martin del Potro a few weeks later...
… Roddick laughingly told you that he was kind of mad at Federer – because he had failed against del Potro.
In this final Roger couldn't cope with the pressure, he never had such a drop-out against Andy. But Andy is one of Rogers biggest fans. He was the main contributor to the book alongside Paul Annacone. Andy told so many anecdotes. David Foster Wallace wrote the famous essay about the experience of seeing Roger as a fan. I wanted to try to ask as many players as possible how it is to play against him, how different compared to others. The good thing about players who have already resigned is that they can speak more openly.
Roddick also tried to explain the specificity of individual shots from Federer. Funnily enough, he couldn't quite put it into words. Federer's chip return is so different from others. His serve, which comes in at 200 kph, feels kind of soft. The forehand has so much spin, although Federer can do without any special contortions, such as those made by Nadal.
Andy also pointed out that putting others out of the game is one of Roger's great strengths. Because he's so unpredictable. That has to do with his tactics, but also with the fact that his facial expressions don't give you anything. You rarely know what's going on inside him. And then his technique. Of course, everyone knows the curve in topspin, but many guys have mentioned the "late dip" in Rogers forehand: it often seems as if the ball goes wide and then it falls down at the end. Many players, even those who have played against him for years, are always surprised by this.
Nick Kyrgios once praised Federer's almost inconspicuous chip return.
It's not typical either, there's sideways spin, the ball is almost dead. You can't just play it back, you have to work for it. He beat so many people with that punch. His blocked return has also won him so many matches, especially against heavy servers like Andy. And his placement on serve, opponents can't read his serve. Andy is still mad that he couldn't solve the puzzle more often. After all, he won the last match against Roger. He also explicitly mentioned that (laughs). Novak Djokovic has also highlighted Roger's unpredictability. You can never adjust to a pattern that would last for a long time. But that also corresponds to Roger's personality. He is someone who likes variety, who appreciates new things. And that's how he plays tennis.
You write about the Davis Cup game between Switzerland and the USA in Basel in 2001, where Federer made a huge impression on you. Federer was just inside the top 20 at the time and you were convinced he was going to win Wimbledon - on multiple occasions.
He just won his first ATP title back then. Had done well at the Olympics. Still, many people had their doubts. I first saw him in the 1999 French Open against Patrick Rafter - a couple of agents had advised me to do so. We don't represent the guy, they said, but look at him, he's special. Federer looked great, but a bit immature, spirited, with a lot of ups and downs. At the Davis Cup in Basel, two years later, I was amazed at how much he had improved. From his movements, but also how he was able to hurt the opponent from every position on the pitch. Todd Martin was a good indoor player but Roger played cat and mouse with him. I could only imagine how good he would be on grass. I've had few revelations in my life, but this was one. I was convinced that he would win multiple Wimbledons. A few months later he beat Pete Sampras.
For your research, you also watched the 1998 junior Wimbledon final, which Federer won.
I had asked Alexandra Willis, the Wimbledon communications chief, about it. She said: No problem - and found out that the game was not even in the club. But she took care of it. It was great. The result was close, but it all happened so quickly, only a few seconds between the points. You could also see there that Roger had his moments, kicked balls, threw the bat and sometimes behaved like a player he didn't want to be. But that was fun.
Have you watched all the important matches in his career?
There were two great fun factors in writing: one, talking to all the people about Roger, I must have done around 80 interviews. And then watching the old matches again. Especially the games against Lleyton Hewitt from the early 2000s, they were so good! Also because of the opposite style: Roger attacked, Lleyton countered – like Sampras and Agassi. The game against Marat Safin at the Australian Open, which Roger lost, is in my personal top 10. Then the first match against Nadal in Miami, when he beat him. The good thing is that you can see almost everything from this period. If you were to write a book about Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall, there would be little material. But you can find most of Roger's most important games. I must have watched 30 or 40 matches in full. The important ones of course, but also others to see how his game has evolved.
How has Federer developed personally - has he changed compared to your first encounter?
I don't presume to know how he developed personally. I'm not his friend, not a family member. An interview is an interview. Here he is very pleasant, very open. He hasn't changed at all in certain areas - even if he has become a billionaire in the meantime (laughs). He always asks questions about his interlocutor, is interested in him, at least it seems that way. My first conversation in 2001 was less of an interview and more of a conversation. And in 2019, the last time I spoke to him, it was the same. What has changed is of course his knowledge, in general, but also about tennis history. His sense of humor is also often underestimated, he always cracks a joke and likes to laugh. In conversation, he doesn't come across as elegant as in advertising, more like a normal person. He's a warm guy. And a chameleon: It adapts to the situation it is in. With sponsors it goes one way, with his colleagues in the changing room the other, he jokes around. And towards journalists he is very thoughtful. His mother is South African, his father Swiss, he is just a very adaptable person.
Once, you write, Federer snapped at you – when you mentioned Lenzerheide, where he lived. He wasn't that well known back then.
I was traveling with him in Argentina in 2012. It was a great conversation until I suddenly said something about Lenzerheide. Then he stopped and clearly explained: Don't write where I live! That was interesting because it was such an abrupt change. Roger wants to protect his private life and he's done a great job with that too. He will be happy to answer any questions, talk about the game. But when it comes to that area, it's more sensitive. But of course he needs his private time to regain his strength. In Switzerland, people accept that too. If he lived in Argentina or Italy it would be more difficult. His manager Tony Godsick once told me: when Roger is walking around in Zurich, he is hardly disturbed. And if so, then not from the Swiss, but from tourists. I also met him two or three times in Switzerland, it was the same there.
Federer has now been injured – more or less – for two years and has had to have repeated knee operations. He hopes to return in the summer, at almost 41.
Roger is an optimist, has positive energy, young children. He certainly has two goals: first, get his knee fixed so that he can later have a normal life with his children. That's a big motivation. And secondly… well, people have been asking Roger when he was going to retire since 2009 when he won the French Open. He's immune to it. His role models are people like Laver, Rosewall or Agassi. I don't think he likes coming back just for the Laver Cup. Maybe it will, but I don't think that's what he wants. At the end of the day, he's someone who enjoys playing tennis, who enjoys feeling the ball on the racquet. And he loves competition.
Can he play for a big win again?
When Roger was last healthy he was just one point away from winning Wimbledon - one point! I think he thinks he has a good chance again. Sure, things didn't look bad on paper in 2021 either, he was in the quarter-finals at the age of 39. Personally, I don't think he'll get any further than what he's been up to, I think there are too many players in the way. But why should Roger think like that?
Mr. Clarey, thank you very much for the interview and all the best!