|
September 9, 2007
NO AMERICANS, NO PROBLEM: WE'VE GOT FEDERER
By Jay Greenberg, New York Post
SUPER Saturday did not need one of the graceless Williams
sisters once again either overcoming or falling to their
shamelessly-advertised maladies. It did not require Svetlana
Kuznetsova, outclassed by Justine Henin, to finally provide a
compelling women's final. Nor was it necessary to have more play, or
words, from Andy Roddick, who takes the cake for making an issue of an
obviously jestful "piece of cake" comment by Roger Federer, as if he
had recorded a 143-11 record over the last two years by underestimating
his opponents. This tournament never needed Americans, or the
above Americans to act typically like Americans, or even Federer's clay
nemesis, Rafael Nadal, to get another shot today at the greatest player
in the world. That would have been nice, but so is a final matchup with
Novak Djokovic, the last person to beat Federer, last month in three
sets. But in the likelihood things turns out differently this
time, the only disappointment at the 2007 U.S. Open would be failing to
fully comprehend the intricate genius of the Swiss Chronometer, or to
appreciate our good fortune to witness it repeatedly. "Lucky,"
said Nikolay Davydenko, a loser in three sets in the wind yesterday,
sounding three sheets to that wind. "Sometimes I try to make moving him
right, and left and some points he just plays like so good. "Running,
you get not great control from the baseline. But he just keeps hitting
the ball back. You like surprising because you don't know how it is
possible." The Russian, ranked fourth in the world, is 0-10
against Federer. One can only presume he was trying to say that some of
Federer's shots are so consistently amazing, they look lucky. That
mystique is the reality of Davydenko, Roddick (1-14 vs. Federer), and
everyone, except Nadal on clay. Today Federer will play in a record
10th consecutive Grand Slam final. A win would give him 12
championships in his last 18 Slams. At age 26, he would be just two
short of Pete Sampras's record 14 and still needing just the one French
Open title that Sampras never had to become the unquestioned best male
player in the Open era. When Sampras is passed, by 2009 if not
sooner, arguments will begin as to the greatest player of all time.
Fifteen or 16 Federer slams will leave a case only for Rod Laver, who
when these were amateur-only tournaments, twice won every slam in a
calendar year and would have won more had he not decided to earn a
living. For a long time after the Open era began in 1968,
mostly Australians played the Australian Open. So you can't count
slams, but only Laver had a compact era of dominance comparable to this
one by Federer. And only a fool has become bored watching it, or tries
to discredit competition that hits harder and is better conditioned
than in Laver's day. Go ahead, make your year with just one
five-set win over Federer. And who, besides Nadal, on his home red mud,
has done it consistently? The emergence of Djokovic adds another,
welcome test for Federer, who will have to be better today than he was
yesterday. And who doesn't believe he won't be absolutely as good as
required? "I'm always well prepared for majors," Federer said
yesterday. "I don't have hiccups early, stupid five-setters. . . . If
my serve doesn't work, my baseline game helps me out. So . . . I'm
still okay." His backhand, razor sharp against Roddick and
Feliciano Lopez, wobbled in the wind, making yesterday one to play it
safe, which Federer did, until after being broken three times in the
third set, he won the last four games. "I never underestimate
my opponent and I can play the moment very well," he said. "There's
also one very important part to my game, to understand the moment." We had better understand how extraordinary this one is, too. And celebrate it as long as it lasts.
|
