Bud Collins

Should we sing a dirge in the dirt of Monte Carlo for Roger Federer? Must we declare that his invincibility license has expired, and his days of collecting major championships are over?

I don’t think so, although the way Roger has started this campaign, like a guy trying to find a light switch in a dark room, hasn’t been reassuring to his faithful. Six tournaments played, one unremarkable title, a 20-5 match record -- very good for 99 per cent of his colleagues, but shaky for Federer.

But I don’t think we can label him Roger the Codger just yet as he attempts to hold onto his No. 1 merit badge for the fifth successive year. After all, he’ll be only 27-years-old on Aug. 8, and three majors -- French, Wimbledon, U.S. -- lie ahead.

The guy is in a slump. Happens to the best in every sport, and he’s probably asking himself some questions in the middle of the night. Like, “How could I blow a service break lead in the first set, and a 4-0 lead in the second?” in mulling over the 7-5, 7-5, Monte Carlo championship-lost decision to Rafa Nadal on clay.

Yes, how does a guy -- anointed by some as the greatest of all-time (too early for me to declare him that) -- explain that to himself as he heads, probably, to his first double-digits in the loss column since 2003.

He lost nine matches last year, 5, 4 and 6 in the three previous seasons.

We know the numbers, but what we don’t know is if he’s completely recovered from the mononucleosis bout that likely cost him the Australian title. He says he’s 100 percent -- but, as a proud, competitive man, he wouldn’t say anything else as long as he’s playing.

Federer may be momentarily discouraged, but he won’t stay that way. For one thing, he doesn’t have to face Nadal in an earthen rectangle every day. That’s heartening. Challenging Nadal on clay is like swimming upstream against a rocky rapids.

But Federer almost missed out on that recent opportunity when he was assailed in the opening round by somebody named Reuben Ramirez Hidalgo, was twice two points from defeat, but hung on from 1-5 in the third to win 6-1, 3-6, 7-6 (7-1) for goodness sake!

Still Federer ought to have three more shots at Nadal in the dirt: Hamburg, Rome, Paris -- if they both get to the finals. Nadal has the clay edge, 7-1.

However, I feel that shrewd Jose Higueras, Federer’s latest coach, was pleased even in defeat to Nadal in Monte Carlo because Federer was attacking more, seizing opportunities to chip-and-charge and scoring at the net. He needs to be venturesome, as he hasn’t been in past years. After all, he should give it a try. What's he got to lose?. Baselining against Nadal is as hopeful as beating a casino. Federer also has to revive his serve that customarily hit lines and corners.

Slideshow   The Week in Sports Pictures The Giants on top of the football world, getting ready for the London Olympics and more. more photos

Higueras is an excellent acquisition. Higgy was with Michael Chang for that improbable 1989 French Open championship and with Jim Courier for his Parisian triumphs of 1991-92. I’m one who believes -- maybe I’m a naïve -- that Federer can win the French by rushing Nadal, assaulting his second serve and denying him time to hit the passers.

Still, I’m one who picked Novak Djokovic to beat Federer in the last U.S. Open final. But I’m a believer in Jack Kramer’s theory that a player should peak at 30. After all Rod Laver constructed his second Grand Slam at age 31. So I think it’s a little soon to write off Federer, despite the crowd nipping at his sneakered heels and feeling more hopeful because of his least impressive start to a season since becoming ranked No. 1.

As an aside, I’ve heard from many who were frustrated watching Federer-Nadal on Tennis Channel. You couldn’t see the yellow ball against the background of Monte Carlo Country Club clay. It wasn’t a production failing. This happens every year, according to an ATP official.

Maybe they should try red balls. I’m serious. In 1972 when Wimbledon decided to accept yellow balls, award-winning NBC director Teddy Nathanson said yellow was an improvement, but that pink would have been a better contrasting shade.

Possibly on clay, too. But is Federer in the pink at this stage?

We just don't know.