September 09, 2008
The King is Not Dead, Long Live Roger!
By Tim JoyceThe more things change ... yeah, yeah, I know. I should never have doubted him. And saying he may never win another major title and therefore won't catch Pistol Pete - downright foolhardy now that lucky 13 is already in the trophy case.
Even if he didn't have to battle his Kryptonite, Nadal. Even if the bizarre, nonsensical schedulers at the TV-ratings-obsessed USTA gave him a huge break and allowed his Saturday match to go on first. And the fact that he played a humbled, restrained and distracted Novak Djokovic in the semis and an exhausted and overwhelmed Andy Murray tonight takes nothing away from his resetting of the 2008 tennis storyline. Change that marquee from the Year of Rafa to Roger's Not Done - Yet.
Roger Federer's 6-2, 7-5, 6-2 demolition of Murray on a stunningly beautiful September evening in Gotham is obviously a landmark achievement for the proud champion who is now the first player in tennis history to hold five consecutive titles at two separate Grand Slam events, Wimbledon and the US Open.
And this is after he has seen a significant amount of stardust wear off this season. Starting with Djokovic's vanquishing of King Roger in Australia, this has been a trying year for the Swiss stylist (obviously a mediocre year for Roger is still a stupendous year for nearly everyone else on the tour). Having only 2 tournament titles - and very minor ones at that - coming into the Open and having players without the surname of Nadal beat him with regularity these last nine months, there was no indication whatsoever that Federer would be up to the task of flushing the competition in Flushing.
But let's be clear: this in no way is as triumphant a moment as when a 31-year-old Pete Sampras defeated longtime archrival Andre Agassi in the 2002 final. Now, if the Fed comes back in a few years and pulls out another title, that's something else altogether. Until that time, I'll still refrain from declaring the Roger the greatest of all time. But he has certainly aided his cause by refusing to yield just yet to the oncoming tide of players who are the last roadblocks to athletic immortality.
Which brings us to the other big story from this year's Open - the increasing competition among the top men. Plainly speaking the battle has not only been joined, it's been squared as there are now four legitimate contenders for major crowns - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and, of course, The Great Hope of Britain, Murray - who by the way prefers the noise of New York to the lawns of London.
The Scot has seemingly rid himself of the fragile emotions which left him quivering in past events. His utter dismantling of Nadal in the semifinals where he actually made Rafa look tired - never done before! - is proof of how quickly Murray has combined a newfound mental toughness with a suitcase full of shots of both the power and finesse variety.
And very soon this quartet will have company. Juan Martin Del Potro gave Murray fits in their quarterfinal and he is poised to make a run to at least a Grand Slam final in 2009. Latvian Ernests Gulbis and Croatian Marin Cilic are two more who performed admirably these last two weeks and are primed to make the top ten within a year. And this is turning out to be the best top ten in some time.
Not since the late 1980s when Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander, and the aging Connors and McEnroe were all residents in the top of the rankings, has tennis had such a bounty of talent. I can't envision 2009 not being a hyper-competitive and fulfilling year in men's tennis. The quarterfinals of these majors will now have intriguing matchups when the draw is announced. Through this year, the only question has been whether Federer or Nadal has to play Djokovic in the semis.
If the King is not dead then surely the Queen isn't either. Serena Williams has been the best women's player in tennis for nearly a decade - when she decides to work at it. Both Williams sisters are perhaps inconsistent when tennis isn't their number one priority but they are both proud champions and there just seemed to be a palpable, extra desire this year for both of them. After Venus secured her amazing fifth Wimbledon title in July, beating her sister for only the second time in a Slam final, one just sensed that the Open would be little sister's return to glory.
After all this is where Serena outdid her sister nine years ago, beating her to the trophy when she captured the first Williams major title at the age of 17. Now, nine years later - and by the way not since Steffi Graf has a woman won a major title with at least that much time elapsing - Serena's back where she belongs, as No. 1 in the women's game.
Very rarely is a tennis player in possession of a powerful all-court game along with mental toughness. And that is understating the state of things in Serena's world. Williams has a mental resiliency unmatched in the sport - all those break points and set points down against her big sister in those tiebreakers on Wednesday in that premature quarterfinal encounter.
Consider - aside from Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova is the only woman to beat Serena in Grand Slam finals. Her 9-3 record is testament enough to her supreme level of confidence in the biggest moments. In fact her mental fortitude is the key, the separating factor between her and the rest of the field.
What is frustrating about watching Serena is that there's no reason why she can't play like this all the time. No one in women's tennis - zero, nobody - has the serve, ground strokes and most importantly the forecourt acumen that Serena has. I often wonder why she doesn't approach the net on nearly every point. Her 28 for 34 success rate in the final against Jelena Jankovic is proof of her dominance.
Has order truly been restored at the top for both genders? Far too early to make such a claim, but this is much is known - Roger Federer and Serena Williams are still major forces to be reckoned with and the sport is healthier, dare I say thriving, when they're both around.
Tournament notes:
➢ The Open is still looking for a great five-set final. Not since 1999 and before that 1988 has it happened of late - only twice in the last 28 years has the men's final gone the distance. Can't help but think it was an anticlimax after that incandescent Wimbledon championship.
➢ The way the USTA, a.k.a. CBS, handled the rain day on Saturday was atrocious and there should have been an greater outcry from the fans - but hey, the final weekend is so full of corporate seat holders that they probably didnt' know they were being treated horribly. Knowing with almost 100% certainty that it was nearly impossible to fit in both semifinals, the entire day should have been rescheduled for Sunday and the final should have been played on Monday night. Hey, CBS will lose ratings to Monday Night Football anyway, so why not have tennis on in prime time?
➢ Speaking of the women, without the recently retired Justine Henin and the injured Maria Sharapova, there was a decided lack of drama. It's a good thing that Serena and Venus added the only dramatic moments in the tournament. And they shouldn't have met in the final as written about previously.
➢ Jelena Jankovic should be congratulated for maintaining a consistency in major events. She was the most consistent in all four Slam tournaments this year - reaching at least the semis in three of the four. But the likable, emotional Serbian lacks a killer shot and one wonders how much longer she'll be a threat in the big events.
➢ Federer was correct when speaking after the match and saying that tennis is in good hands, with great players and fine sportsmanship to go around.
➢ Don't we all wish it had been Nadal in the final?
