Nadal-Federer sucks you in like Tiger in a major

ON TENNIS

Generally, I regard my weekends as a chance to live a normal schedule, an opportunity to hit the sack before 3 in the morning.

As someone who works overnight shifts during the week, I consider my Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights as go-to-bed-before-the-sun-rises nights.

That likely won't happen tonight.

Not when Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are exchanging ground strokes and scintillating rallies Down Under. After having to watch their last grand-slam final — remember that five-setter at Wimbledon? You know, the greatest match of all time — on the day after it went down, there's no way I won't catch this battle of the titans live.

If the final pitted, say, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, watching it a day later during normal-people hours wouldn't be a problem. But there are certain athletes competing in certain events that take competition to another level.

The obvious one is Tiger Woods.

When Woods is in contention at a major, it's can't-miss television. Will Tiger hold on? Will Tiger finally come back and win one? What amazing, you-gotta-be-kidding-me shot will Tiger put in the hole?

There is great drama and intrigue when the sport's greatest player is roaming the course with fire in his eyes.

Rich Beem and Jim Furyk don't create that kind of excitement.

The same electricity is in the air when Federer and Nadal take the court in a grand-slam final, as will be the case for the seventh time tonight/tomorrow in Melbourne. (Nadal has won four of the six.) The intensity is ratcheted up and, most important, the quality of play on both sides of the net can't be matched by any other combination of players.

They're so evenly matched, any break of serve is seen as a huge advantage. And yet as predictable as a match can get — service games are won, the players go back and forth — a Federer-Nadal match never gets boring, never becomes mundane because you never know what they'll pull out of their trick bags.

On one point, it might be Nadal curving an impossible-looking forehand up the line. On the next point, it could be Federer lacing one of his impeccable one-handed backhands past a charging Nadal.

You never know what's going to happen each point. You can never count out either player because of their in-a-class-of-their-own ability and unbreakable confidence. How else can one explain Federer coming back from two sets down to beat Nadal in back-to-back tiebreaks and take that memorable Wimbledon match to a fifth set?

These factors combine to make Nadal-Federer can't miss television. But there's another reason to skip sleeping for watching these two battle inside Rod Laver Arena.

They won't be around forever.

Just like the PGA must dread the day when Tiger leaves, the men's tennis world can't be looking forward to Federer's retirement — which is probably within five years.

Sure, there are plenty of up-and-coming talented young players today — such as Djokovic and Murray — and Nadal, just 22, will be around for several years to come. But unlike in golf, riveting tennis requires two players to concoct a rivalry such as the one Federer and Nadal have created.

So once Federer has eclipsed Pete Sampras' record of 14 grand-slam titles — he can tie it tonight — and decided to move on to life's other treasures, this era of men's tennis will likely never be the same.

We are privileged to live in today's sports world. We got to watch Tiger win the U.S. Open on one leg. We got to see Michael Phelps do what no one thought possible in the pool. We got to see an NFL team come within a game of going undefeated, scaring the '72 Dolphins to the brink of losing their place in history.

These aren't accomplishments to be taken for granted, and athletes such as Federer and Nadal should be just as cherished.

They — and the excitement, drama and tension they create on the court — are a special sight to behold.

A very good reason to stay up well beyond bedtime.

Aussie Open a true fitness challenge for world's top players

ON TENNIS

In the not-so-distant past, there have been no paucity of questions concerning Andy Roddick's fitness and — thus — dedication to his sport of tennis.

His weight was an issue, there was no way you'd see anything close to a six- or two-pack when he lifted up his shirt to wipe the perspiration off his face, and he became weaker during the final sets of long matches.

But on a blistering-hot Tuesday in Melbourne, Roddick put all that talk to rest and showed off his new — and very improved — fitness level. Unfortunately for viewers like myself anticipating a hotly contested four- or five-set quarterfinal match, the tournament's defending champion Novak Djokovic must have eaten a few too many palacinkes and not spent enough time training.

Because after winning an extremely entertaining first set under the piercing afternoon sun — as a former visitor to Australia, I'd recommend sun screen as essential item No. 1 — in a tiebreak, Djokovic was never the same.

He took an allowed respite from the action during the second set, which has to be one of tennis' dumbest rules since Roddick was clearly ready to continue playing. But it didn't matter. The young Serb simply didn't have it the rest of the match.

After Roddick won the second set 6-4, he coasted through a 6-2 third set and was up 2-1 in the fourth when Djokovic called it quits. It must have been difficult for last year's champ to throw in the towel, but I don't blame him. Only a Roddick collapse — literally or figuratively — would have allowed Djokovic back in the match.

So because of his superb play, but even more so his superior endurance, Roddick is one win away from his fourth grand-slam final. And even if he meets Roger Federer, like expected, don't rule him out.

When a player gets better as a match progresses, even under brutal conditions, he's dangerous. It means losing an early set — or two — won't get him down, won't lower his level of play. That's where Roddick is right now, and he knows it.

"I worked pretty hard during the offseason, and that was for days like today," Roddick said. "I was pretty disciplined. I was at the track every morning at 8 (a.m.)."

Roddick went on to say that he practiced three hours each day and watched his diet. Add up those routines, and you've got a 26-year-old man in arguably the best tennis-playing shape of his career.

"I felt all right," Roddick said after the match. "To be honest, when I listened to the forecast they were forecasting death for a lot of people because of the heat."

Djokovic, luckily, didn't suffer any symptoms other than having to give up. Not that it will make the supremely talented 21-year-old feel better, but that isn't so uncommon Down Under. It's not exactly fair, but the year's first grand-slam tournament is by far the most grueling.

Just as players are getting themselves into tennis shape, just as they're getting focused on the year ahead, they must play in the midst of the Australian summer — often times under the brightest, baddest sun in the world.

While the real temperature inside Rod Laver Arena was in the low- to mid-90s during the match, the feel-like temperature, according to ESPN2's coverage, was 140 degrees. I can't even imagine playing two sets, let alone five, under those conditions.

Because of the heat, players having to withdrawal isn't so uncommon. And there are also more injuries — possibly due to the sweltering conditions. Just Monday, three competitors had to cut short their Round of 16 matches — two sustained wrist injuries and another had what was determined food poisoning.

Maybe they were completely isolated from the heat. After all, it wasn't quite as steamy Monday. But there's something in the water Down Under that makes surviving several rounds of the Aussie Open, not to mention the great players one faces, the most difficult task in tennis.

Sure, the French Open isn't kind to poor clay-court players. And, yep, if you're no good on grass, you won't be in the running at Wimbledon. But the year's first major isn't just about the surface. It's about the heat pounding Melbourne's hard courts, turning a seemingly indomitable first-set Djokovic into an "it's time to quit" fourth-set Djokovic.

Sadly, Tuesday wasn't the first time he's cut a grand-slam match short. He went out early against Rafael Nadal during the 2006 French Open — with the way Nadal plays on clay, can you blame him? — and he also retired early against the Spaniard during the '07 Wimbledon tournament.

But the quarterfinal result was as much about Roddick's stamina as Djokovic's lack thereof. So give credit to Roddick. The man is in great shape.

And — on a light note — even if that doesn't mean his second career major title, it should at lest impress his soon-to-be wife, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue model Brooklyn Decker.

Federer's mediocre year

ON TENNIS

Man, what a terrible year for Roger Federer.

What a fall from grace.

What happened to the best player in men's tennis?

Only one grand-slam title? Only two runner-up finishes in grand slams? And he only reached the semifinals of the other major tournament?

Geez, a career change might be in order (barber, perhaps?). How can a dude who had to travel through 18 time zones (or so) to reach Beijing possible feel good about only winning a gold medal in doubles — doubles!

(Note the severe sarcasm.)

But that's what some of the murmurs were regarding arguably the best men's tennis player of all time. At least that was the case before Federer silenced those voices with a dominating victory over Andy Murray in the U.S. Open championship match Monday evening.

If you need evidence that Federer is the Tiger Woods of tennis — you shouldn't — look no further than his 2008. When he hadn't captured one of the first three majors, the whispers started.

Forget that he was under the dark cloud of mononucleosis for most of the first half of the year. Forget that he went up against the King of Clay, Rafael Nadal, in the French Open final. Nadal's victory, his fourth consecutive French Open title and third straight title-match win over Federer, was no surprise; his straight-sets domination, though, gave people fodder with which to question Federer.

And forget that Federer's loss to Nadal in the Wimbledon finale is considered by many the greatest match of all time. Forget that a point here, a point there, and Federer would have won a record sixth consecutive title in London.

When Federer finally lost his No. 1 ranking after a record 237 consecutive weeks, he was almost forgotten. The focus shifted to the younger players, the guys whose careers were on the upswing rather than the downswing.

There is this great inclination among media members and fans to dismiss tennis players as "over the hill" once they reach a certain age. All that's needed is a little evidence, a "down year." That's what happened to Federer this year.

All I know is this: I watched Federer, 27, throughout the Open, including his beating of Murray, and he looked pretty strong on the court. He covered the baseline well, looking nearly as quick as the 23-year-old Murray. He was brilliant at the net, taking advantage of Murray's tendency to stay well behind the baseline.

Just like 26-year-old Serena Williams, Federer displayed great versatility in winning his 13th grand slam. And that will help him win a few more majors before he retires from the sport. Yes, there's no doubt that Federer — barring an injury or catastrophe — will break Pete Sampras' record of 14 grand-slam titles.

What makes Williams and Federer special is that they're able to make up for their age by bringing an all-around game to the court. While Murray was effective against Nadal because of his defense — he was able to cover the entire baseline — Federer was able to frustrate Murry by hitting solid approach shots and winning several points at the net.

I'm sure the serve-and-volley Sampras would agree that charging the net is a great way to beat youth when you're not quite as spry as you once were. Just think about it. It diminishes the angles that a player can use to whip a ground stroke past you. In Federer's easy 6-2 third set over Murray, the Scot became visibly disgusted when all his passing shots were put away by perfect volleys. It was as if there was nowhere for Murray to hit the ball.

Federer, like Williams, must have benefited from his doubles victory in Beijing. He looked better at the net in New York than I'd ever seen him. Was his one-handed backhand as nasty as a year ago? Nope. Did his serve yield as many aces? I don't have numbers, but I highly doubt it.

It didn't matter. Playing with an emotion that demonstrated just how badly he wanted a 2008 major, Federer played perhaps his easiest match of the tournament. The 7-5 second set was a tough one — punctuated by a missed call that would have given Murray a break — but the 6-2 first and third sets left no doubt who the better player was.

Unfortunately, there was no Federer-Nadal rematch in the finale, because the two have created quite a rivalry. But something tells me 2009 will be a special year for men's tennis. Anyone who expects one player to win more than two majors is kidding themselves. Those day are over — at least for now. Federer's years of winning three grand slams (2004, '06 and '07) are gone. Winning two (like in '05) would be a tall task, too.

But don't chalk this up to a declining Federer. Rather, the competition has caught up to him. That's what happens in sports. There's always an up-and-coming opponent. Federal, Nadal, No. 3 Novak Djokovic, Murray and others will beat each other up throughout 2009.

And Federer is well aware of this. During the trophy presentation, Federer noted that he is very pleased with where men's tennis is. It was a diplomatic thing to say, and also very true. The sport has gotten very competitive, and the man who remains right in the thick of the top slate of players was kissing another trophy Monday evening.

He is now the first player — ever — to win two grand slams five times in a row. No, not a bad accomplishment to be recognized for.

As CBS commentator Dick Enberg said, "Cancel those obituaries."

Nadal denies Federer all-time greatness again

ON TENNIS

Roger Federer did not look like the world's No. 1 tennis player Sunday. In fact, he looked far from it. Like, maybe, No. 81.

Blame Rafael Nadal.

Once again, the Spaniard blew away Federer's chance of the career grand slam by dominating him on Roland Garros' clay surface. The score was 6-1, 6-3, 6-0, and Federer had to work extra hard just to steal those four games.

Yes, Federer wasn't at his best. But even his A- game wouldn't have won a set. That's how near-perfect Nadal was. The 22-year-old covered the entire court brilliantly, chasing down every potential winner hit by the overly aggressive Federer. And when he had a chance to end a point, his form was flawless.

Nadal didn't lose a set during the two-week French Open, and he's never lost a match in four years at the tournament. If not for his presence, well ...

1. Federer would have at least one French Open title, considering he's been in the final the past three years as the world's No. 1.

2. Federer might be tied with Pete Sampras for career grand slams won at 14. As it stands, Federer is still two shy with 12.

3. Most importantly, Federer might be considered the greatest men's tennis player of all time. As it stands, a feisty Spaniard stands in his way.

Because as great as Federer has been on grass -- with his five consecutive Wimbledon titles -- and on hard courts, with his four straight U.S. Opens, he can't be considering the best of all time sans a first-place finish at Roland Garros.

Again, blame Rafael Nadal.

Entering this tournament, Federer said he was playing his best clay-court tennis. He even won a tournament on the surface to back up his claim. He lost a couple sets during the rounds leading up to Sunday's final, but he was never in danger of losing.

He felt good about himself, about his chances. And when he has that confidence, there's usually no stopping him.

But instead he suffered his worst French Open final loss yet. What does that say about his chances next year and the year after? At 26, Federer is past his prime. He's still good -- really good -- but he's not going to get better on clay. Nadal, on the other hand, is still improving.

The only chance, in my mind, Federer has of winning that elusive fourth grand slam is for him to face a bracket that doesn't include Nadal. Maybe an injury. Maybe an out-of-nowhere upset. That's what Federer will need.

But first, he has to show that he can still win a grand slam -- any grand slam. For the first time since 2005, Federer will arrive in London devoid of a calendar-year major. And forget the streak he has there. Last year, Nadal took him to five sets in the final. Now, Nadal is a year wiser and more skilled. Australian Open champion Novak Djokovic shouldn't be forgotten either. He ousted Federer in the semifinals of that tournament.

Federer could, potentially, win the next three majors to eclipse Sampras' milestone. But chances are he won't have broken the record a year from now, and don't expect it to happen at Roland Garros in 2009.

It's not because he's a bad clay-court player.

Rather, the reason is the presence of the Clay King.

Again, blame Rafael Nadal.

Parity a good thing for men's tennis

ON TENNIS

At 3:03 a.m., I passed out on the couch.

I couldn't make it to the 3:30 starting time. But that doesn't mean I wasn't excited about this men's Australian Open final. In fact, I was more pumped for the Novak Djokovic-Jo-Wilfried Tsonga matchup than for any grand slam final in recent memory.

For the first time in three years, one man was absent from the final: Roger Federer. And for the first time in three years, I didn't see a clear favorite. Djokovic was the seeded player — No. 3 — who knocked off Federer in straight sets in the semifinals. But Tsonga played the most dominant match of the tournament in dispatching of No. 2 Rafael Nadal in straight sets.

Plus, Tsonga has looks similar to a certain Muhammad Ali, a fact not lost upon his boisterous French fans, who like to shout out, "Go Ali!"

So I was not surprised when I suddenly awoke from my deep sleep at 6:14. Some old Super Bowl — I think SB XXIII featuring the 49ers and Bengals — was playing on the TV, but I was just alert enough to locate the remote, which was under the couch, and flip over to ESPN2.

... And it didn't take me long to wake up.

Djokovic and Tsonga were immersed in an emotion-filled, energized final. The crowd, quite decorous for most of the tournament's two weeks, was voluble, yelling out encouragement to their favorite, Tsonga, after each point. Djokovic's fans responded with chants of "Nole! Nole! Nole!" — the 20-year-old Serbian's nickname.

It was the fourth set, Tsonga having taken the first set before Djokovic won the second and third sets. And it would go down to the wire.

Not once during the drama-filled set did I find myself yearning for Federer or Nadal, who have dominated the grand slams the past few years. Watching Tsonga and Djokovic fight for their first grand slam title was good television, especially at 6:15 on a Sunday morning.

(No, I don't watch cartoons.)

I even found myself gaining a rooting interest in Tsonga only because I wanted to see more tennis. When Djokovic won a point on Tsonga's serve in the tiebreak, I pounded the pillow I was holding in frustration. When Djokovic took a commanding 6-2 lead, I gingerly started planning my sleeping plans.

Yes, I was disappointed that I didn't get a fifth set, that I didn't get to stay awake for another hour, but that didn't take away from how great the tennis was during the 45 minutes I was able to stay out of sleep mode.

And this could only be the beginning.

As good as Roger Federer is, the competition has caught up to him. At 20, Djokovic has loads of potential. As annoying as his several-bounce routine prior to big service points is, his talent and cool-customer demeanor are very similar to traits of the Great Federer.

Tsonga, 22, has just as bright of a future. Anyone who saw his match against Nadal knows what he's capable of.

Will either player be as consistently dominant as Federer?

C'mon, mate? Arya crazy?

But no longer can we pencil Federer in for three grand slam championships a year and Nadal for the French Open title.

As in other sports, parity is a good thing for men's tennis.

Federer is still the undisputed world's No. 1, but he's got some company at the top.

Federer is still the man, but for how long?

ON TENNIS

The result was inevitable. But it was still good television.

Serbia's Novak Djokovic pushed Roger Federer to the limit Sunday evening, succumbing to the world's undisputed No. 1 in three highly contested sets — the first two were decided in tiebreaks.

After two-plus hours, the sight was very familiar. Roger Federer celebrating a Grand Slam victory, No. 12 on his way to breaking Pete Sampras' record of 14. But Federer had to survive this championship match. There was no relaxing for him until it became lucid in the final set that no upset was in the cards.

In the first set, Djokovic had five set points on serve, but Federer fought them off to get the break. Two double faults by Djokovic in the tiebreaker combined with a couple huge Federer serves gave the Swiss the set.

Djokovic came right back in the second set, breaking Federer and taking a 4-1 lead. However, he couldn't close out the set once again, first giving up a break to make it 4-3 and then losing two set points — one on a 126 mph Federer serve and the other on a poor forehand that should have been a winner.

Djokovic's window of opportunity closed, Federer — with a rare fist pump — dominated the tiebreak, 7-2.

Game, set, match.

No surprise, but it was far from easy.

A closing gap
It could be said that Federer was outplayed for two sets Sunday. He clearly was the better player in the third and final set (6-4), but Djokovic appeared to have the upper hand during the opening two sets (not that anyone believed he'd win them).

You have to consider, though, that the kid is just 20. For him to have beaten Federer would have been downright precocious. He had to be nervous — especially when he had those set points. He had to consider the stage he was on (U.S. Open final in front of a sellout crowd in New York City).

Federer was far from his best Sunday, and we all know that when he's on his A Game, you, your cousin, nor your cousin's best friend has a chance against him. As good as Federer was when the points mattered most, he didn't win his 12th Grand Slam so much as Djokovic lost it.

The underdog simply committed too many unforced errors in crucial situations. Too many backhands into the net. Not good enough net play (the one part of his game he really needs to hone).

Again, Federer probably had his B+ game, but this seemed to be the case — a bit uncharacteristically — throughout the Open. He lost two sets prior to the final, something that hadn't happened since the 2006 French Open. Andy Roddick took Federer to two tiebreaks only to lose them both, just like Djokovic.

Is the winner of five straight Wimbledons, four straight U.S. Opens and two consecutive Australian Opens slipping?

Nah, I won't go that far — winning a tournament made up of 128 players is never easy — but it's plausible that the field of young guns chasing him is catching up. First, Rafael Nadal — not your typical only-good-on-clay-courts Spaniard — took him to a breathtaking five sets in the Wimbledon final, Federer's first (and only) five-set encounter in a Grand Slam finale.

And now Djokovic, a year younger than the 21-year-old Nadal, showed that on a given day he can compete and even threaten the best in the world. What has to (maybe) scare Federer just a tad is that the aforementioned players should only get better and become mentally tougher in the years to come.

Federer, on the other hand, is at his apex. He's in great shape. His backhand's as pure as ever. Although not known for his serve, when he gets on a roll (like he did toward the end of the second set Sunday, when he won eight straight first serves), it can be deadly.

But I don't see much room for improvement. Although maybe we'll see some variety in his victories. Some comeback wins would create even more drama.

Federer breaking Sampras' record is almost a near certainty. As long as he doesn't step in front of a trolley or contract a rare disease, he should break the record in the next two years (if not in 2008). Just consider that he's won an incredible 12 of the past 18 Grand Slams (four of which have been the French Open, which he's never won). He has needed just 34 Grand Slam tournaments to reach a dozen victories compared to 40 for Sampras.

What Roger Federer is doing is unprecedented. Unbelievable. Unfettering.

But how long it lasts is a whole other question. After 22-year-old American John Isner took the first set from Federer before dropping three straight in the third round, it was clear the 6-foot-9 University of Georgia graduate is an up-and-coming player.

Like Djokovic. Like Nadal has been for sometime now.

Federer will probably keep winning for a couple more years. But domination? There's a good chance that'll become a word of the past.