This story is part of Peak, The Athletic’s desk covering the mental side of sports. Sign up for Peak’s newsletter here.
Patrick McEnroe is a former professional tennis player, a commentator on ESPN and the president of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. He’s also the executive director of the John McEnroe Tennis Academy.
One time years ago, when I was relatively new to broadcasting, I was working for CBS during the tournament in Cincinnati. I was the courtside reporter for the men’s final between Roger Federer and James Blake, and it was my job to interview the winner.
Well, Federer just destroyed him — 6-1, 6-4 in about 50 minutes — and that left a lot of time to fill. A producer messaged down to me: Hey, Pat, get Roger to talk as much as possible.
I walked over after the match during a commercial break. “Congrats, Roger,” I said. “Is it OK if I ask you more questions than normal?”
“Sure,” he said.
Then he said something that caught me off guard.
“I was a ball boy for you,” he said.
What?
“Yeah, I ball boy-ed for you,” he said.
I knew almost right away what match he was talking about. In 1994, I lost to the South African Wayne Ferreira in the final of a tournament in Basel, Switzerland, which is Roger’s hometown. Roger sheepishly told me he’d been rooting for Ferreira, which made sense; his mom is South African.
But there’s a reason the story stuck with me is because it explains who Roger is. He’s so tuned into other people. He wants to connect. A lot of tennis players are so egocentric. Selfish is maybe a strong word. But to be a good professional tennis player, you have to have some degree of selfishness to take care of yourself. But Roger always just let people in.
I don’t think anybody’s moved the needle outside of the sport as much as he has. His style obviously was amazing. His grace — his elegance on the court. But I think it’s his demeanor and the way he connected with people.
I remember when he got demolished by Rafael Nadal in the 2008 French Open final. He only won four or five games. It was one of his worst losses ever, in terms of scoreline. And he still had all his friends and family around him afterward to celebrate.
He came back and lost to Nadal again in an epic Wimbledon final a couple weeks later. For most people, when you take these tough losses in big matches, you can easily go back and say, “How did I lose that one?” Or, “How did I get destroyed so badly?” It affects you for a while.
But Roger showed a different level of resilience. Rafa had it, too. So did Novak Djokovic.
I think it’s part of the reason they were all so good. It was beneficial to all of them that they had each other.
My brother once lost the 1984 French Open final to Ivan Lendl in five sets. He would still tell you it’s the toughest loss of his career. We went out afterward and I — being 17 or 18 years old — said, “Don’t worry, bro, you’ll get another chance.”
And he was like: “No, that was my chance to win the French. That was my chance.” And it turned out he was right. In tennis, when the changing of the guard happens, the best often know.
But with the big three, it just kept changing. First, it was Roger, and then Rafa is gonna dominate, and then here comes Novak, and then, no, Roger comes back …
To watch them compete for two decades, they changed tennis. But there were also so many lessons about leadership and growth.
I remember watching Rafa practice one year at the French Open. It was a couple days before a major, and the intensity level was just through the roof. Normally, you’re tapering down at that point. Roger would go out and kind of mess around right before the tournament. Pete Sampras was like that. Andre Agassi would practice super intensely, but for short periods. Rafa was just on another level. He would be out there two, three hours the day before the tournament. It was more intense than watching him play a match.
What singled him out as a player was the topspin on the forehand. He had tremendous hand speed, and to this day, no one has been able to create the speed and spin off of one shot. That singular shot was the biggest weapon on a clay court that’s ever been seen, and it was the reason he was able to dominate at the French.
It’s funny; he actually had more holes in his game than the other guys. He had a mediocre serve for someone at his level, and he wasn’t a great returner. But he understood what he was great at, and he built his game around it. There’s a lesson in that.
Because he recognized his flaws, he also had more of a willingness to try different things. He tinkered with his serve all the time. He was always moving an inch here or an inch there. He was open to change.
Novak, on the other hand, was by far the most technically sound player I’ve ever seen. What I remember most came during the 2010 Davis Cup in Serbia. I was serving as the captain of the U.S. team, and he was already a rock star in his own country. He’d only won one Grand Slam at that point, but I can still feel the intensity of the crowd. It wasn’t like a celebration — it was anger. We’d go play in Spain, and we’d play in France, and the fans are into it, but they’re having fun. In Serbian, these people were pissed off. I was like, they are gonna kill him if he loses this match.
Novak kind of grew up with that, and I realized what makes him tick. He has that edge. He’s been brilliant at using whatever fuel he can find. Tom Brady was the sixth-round pick, and he used that his whole career. For Novak, it was the fact he was not as well liked as Federer and Nadal. He used that.
It was the edge that got Novak saying, “I’m gonna chase both these guys down and do everything he did to get better.” He always got better. He changed the way people thought about nutrition and preparation. There’s five-star food everywhere. There’re proper stretching routines. It’s all about longevity.
It used to be, as a tennis player, you didn’t think you could improve after a certain age. Well, the big three changed that. It’s trickled down to the regular professional player, to guys ranked 40 or 50 in the world. They’re still playing into their mid-30s.
You can see it with Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner, too. They go out and play a Grand Slam final, and afterward, it’s a love fest. It started with Roger; he just really loves the sport. He loves the life. And Rafa followed suit. They really changed the dynamic of what you see when you look at great champions, that you can be tough and resilient and still be a good sport. You can lose gracefully.
I think Novak learned from both of them. And now, of all three, I think he’s actually the best sport in how he handles wins and losses. He’s genuine when a guy beats him. He gives them respect at the net, and he never makes excuses or makes negative comments.
They all changed the dynamic for the better. And I think that’s why they were so successful.
— As told to Rustin Dodd
