Roger Federer and the Australian Cricket Team

Roger Federer and the Australian Cricket team(ACT) make an interesting comparison. There are a lot of similarities between them and yet there are some startling differences; differences which separate legends from champions.

Both Roger Federer and ACT have dominated their respective sport in the last few years. Roger Federer has won 13 and reached 17 finals of the last 22 grand slams. The consistency with which Federer played, especially in the grand slams, made him such a force that most of the players lost even before stepping on to the court. Similarly, Australia has dominated test and one day cricket over the last decade. They have won, an incredible three consecutive world cups and have won test series all over the world, including India which Steve Waugh, the former Australian captain called the final frontier. Like Roger Federer, Australia won half the battle even before taking the field.

Surprisingly, the decline of Roger Federer and ACT has also coincided. 2008 is the year where Roger Federer lost Wimbledon, a grand slam which he had won for the last five years. He lost the No.1 ranking which he held for a record 237 weeks. Though, he won the US open, he lost the aura of invincibility which surrounded him. 2008 is also the year in which Australia lost to India 2-0 in the test series, first time in almost 10 years where they failed to win a test in a series. Also, the manner in which they lost has made other teams believe they can also win against Australia. As with Federer, though Australia is still better than most teams, they are no longer invincible.

But there are some big differences between them as well. Australia come across as a group of overconfident and arrogant cricketers, with no respect for the opposition and who would go to any extent to win a match; remember Sydney test? Under the garb of mental disintegration, they were the ones who introduced sledging into the gentleman's game. On the other hand, being humble in victory is one of Federer's traits. He always respects his opponents irrespective of their rankings, although this should not be misunderstood as lack of confidence.

Now that both Federer and ACT are on decline, the differences are even more clear. When Federer lost the epic Wimbledon final, he had nothing but praise for Nadal. In fact, after every loss (and he has lost quite a few this year), he always gives credit to the opponent. He is a perfect example of someone who is gracious in defeat. ACT, on the other hand are sore loser. Mathew Hayden blamed the incidents in the "Third World" for the series defeat against India, as if India were playing in some other world. Instead of accepting that they were beaten by a better team, Australia is trying to find excuses for the defeat.

Federer is humble in victory and gracious in defeat, whereas ACT is the exact opposite. Hope Australia learns a few lessons from Roger Federer and maintain the dignity of gentleman's game. Though I am an optimist, I somehow feel I am hoping against hope !