Federer wins another major, but that's not even the story

ON TENNIS

Roger Federer won another grand slam Sunday night in Melbourne, defeating Andy Murray 6-3, 6-4, 7-6 (11) to give him 16 for his career. At 28, he now owns two more than Pete Sampras — and he's showing no signs of slowing down or deciding to take a break from such pursuits.

But don't be mistaken — the Federer who kissed another trophy Sunday wasn't the same player who a few years ago crushed opponents with an intimidating assortment of serves, groundstrokes, volleys and fist pumps. Federer might be the world's No. 1, but by no means is there a large or even small gap between him and the rest of the world's best such as Murray, Rafael Nadal (when healthy), Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro, who thwarted Federer, surprisingly at the time, in last September's U.S. Open.

Rather, Sunday was about another missed opportunity for Murray, the 22-year-old Brit who is trying to win a grand slam for the country that hasn't celebrated one since 1936. Murray, as he's shown in lesser tournaments, is physically capable of beating Federer, but in the spectacle of Rod Laver Arena he was clearly far from his best.

Which is why Federer won. Sure, he played very impressively and consistently, hitting the big groundstrokes and volleys when he needed them — fighting off five set points in the third-set tiebreak — but if Murray had played like he did in his quarterfinal dismantling of Nadal (who withdrew down two sets and a knee injury), he probably could have beaten Federer or at least pushed him for more than three sets.

For instance, Murray's backhand is considered the best in men's tennis, but he only matched Federer with six backhand winners. And his 55-percent serving percentage Sunday won't win many grand slam finals.

What Federer does better than ever now is take advantage of his opponent's mistakes. Whenever Murray hit a lazy backhand to Federer's forehand, the four-time Aussie Open champ made sure to pound it toward a corner of the court and won most of those points. He didn't waste his chances. 

Murray, on the other hand, had a handful of opportunities to win the third set and put a little pressure on Federer. But at 6-5 in the tiebreak, he muffed a short forehand into the net, and he blew another four opportunities to win the set during the ridiculous 13-11 tiebreak. 

Federer hardly showed a hint of emotion during the tiebreak, simply going about his business like a convenience-store clerk. He attacked Murray when he had opportunities and played defense when he had to. He was completely comfortable, while Murray — feeling the burden of an entire country's hopes on his shoulders — clearly looked stressed as desperate as he was to win his first set against the world's No. 1 in a major (he's now 0-6 in sets).

Of course, it should be noted that this match might have been decided well before the epic tiebreak. Murray, admittingly, came out with little aggressiveness and lost the first set quickly, 6-3. That brought into play this ridiculous Federer statistic (and he owns many): He is now 172-5 when he takes the first set of a grand-slam match.

Ouch.

"I should have come out with a little more vigor at the beginning of the match," a tearful Murray said on the trophy stand. "I came out a little bit nervous."

(On a side note, Federer knows how to trash talk. On Friday, Federer mused that England hadn't produced a grand-slam winner in "150,000" years and bad-mouthed Murray's defensive style, saying that he had lost rather than Murray won the Brit's previous defeats of Federer in lesser tournaments. Who knows how much the banter affected Murray, if at all, but it certainly didn't hurt Federer, who, obviously, is far from "just talk.")

When he dropped the second set 6-4, Murray knew the mountain he had to climb, but he didn't get rattled and rolled to a 5-2 advantage in the third set. I poured myself a bowl of cereal and prepared for a fourth set. However, Federer is never one to concede a set, or point, or game, and he showed this by battling back and winning two service games sandwiched around a break. And a few minutes later, a tiebreak in Melbourne was imminent.

And that's where talent and athleticism take a backseat to experience and savvy. Murray showed a lot of guts to fight off two match points, including one in which he looked toast before hustling to slap a one-handed backhand past Federer at the net. But Federer showed off his own defense — easily the most underrated part of his game at this stage of his career — throughout the tiebreak and especially on a set point where he could barely get his racket on a huge forehand and survived a wide Murray volley.

Then, suddenly, it was over — on an easy backhand that Murray plopped into the net. And Federer's celebration was brief and, it seemed, one of relief. He thrust his arms into the air, tears welling in his eyes. And at that moment, he knew how great of a victory No. 16 was, he knew the caliber of player he'd just defeated.

"I think I played some of my best tennis (of my career) the last two weeks," Federer said during the trophy presentation. 

And later during his press conference: "I feel like obviously I'm being pushed a great deal by the new generation coming up. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances in a long time, maybe forever."

Now that's saying something.

Best performance ever? I can't name a match, but I'm sure Federer has played plenty of flawless ones. However, his statement still resonates. He knows that there will be no more easy-earned majors, no more coasting over inferior, intimidated opponents. And that's perfectly fine with the man who now has two twins, a beautiful wife and, oh, those 16 majors.

The young guns will get theirs, at some point — think about how many majors players such as Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, the older Andy Roddick (27) and others would have if not for Federer — but for now, Federer unspectacularly remains the best winner in men's tennis.

Even if his competitors are mostly quicker and, you would think, hungrier.

Roger Federer is my male professional athlete of the decade

ON TENNIS

I heard an interesting discussion on the radio this morning, and now I can't help but dive into it -- because I disagree, can you believe that?, with both of the show's hosts' opinions.

The debate: Who is the athlete of the decade?

When thinking about this question, I must lay out just a few criteria:

1. It can't be an athlete who's only been around for, say, six years. I want someone who has performed at an extremely high level since Y2K.

2. The athlete must have won multiple championships. One of the hosts threw out Peyton Manning only to get bludgeoned by the other. Manning's been great, he's graced the cover of SI several times ... but he has just one championship.

And that's it.

My pick? Roger Federer.

Didn't have to think twice. Let me hit you with the numbers.

2000: In his second professional season, Federer reached the third round at the Australian and U.S. opens.

2001: Federer won his first ATP tournament and won three matches for Switzerland in the Davis Cup in the same month. Then he made the quarterfinals at Wimbledon, beating four-time champ Pete Sampras to get there. Not bad for a kid who wasn't even 20 yet.

2002: Federer won his first Masters Series final and beat two former world No. 1s in the Davis Cup against Russia.

And then he really began his ascension to the best in the world.

2003: Won Wimbledon, his first major.

2004: Took the tennis world by storm, winning the Australian and U.S. Opens and repeating at Wimbledon (4 career grand slams).

2005: Wimbledon, U.S. Open (6).

2006: Australian Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open (9). Runner-up at French Open to Rafael Nadal.

2007: Australian Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open (12). Runner-up at French Open to Nadal.

2008: U.S. Open (13). Runner-up at French Open to Nadal.

2009: Won the French Open, finally, and Wimbledon to claim the all-time grand slams record with 15. Was the runner-up at the other two majors -- and could have easily won either of them.
Wow.

I mean, name me a year in which Federer wasn't great? Critics said he was losing it in 2008 -- and he still managed to win a major and lose to Nadal in what was the most epic major-championship final ever at Wimbledon.

I guess the first three years have to be looked at as his down years, because he hadn't won a major yet. But he was still a top-10 player. He wasn't a no-name. People knew he was going to become good.

If not this great, if not the-best-of-all-time great.

Here's the mind-boggling statistic that points to Federer's consistent greatness, to his never having an off day: When he made the semifinals of the '09 U.S. Open, it marked his 22nd consecutive berth in a grand-slam semifinal. Yes, if my math skills are correct, he hasn't been eliminated in the first five rounds of a major since the 2004 French Open.

That's consistency at about its highest level.

So why is Federer more deserving than Tiger Woods, than Albert Pujols, than Kobe Bryant?

Well, let's dismiss Pujols first. And believe me, this isn't easy -- he's been nothing short of amazing. Including his 2001 rookie season, he has hit at least .314 every year with more than 30 home runs. And he might, actually, have avoided the performance-enhancing-drugs phenomenom (although we can never know for sure).

But then there's this: He's only won a single championship -- and it was in a World Series (2006) that the Detroit Tigers lost as much as the St. Louis Cardinals won.

OK, let's move on to Tiger -- and this is easy.

Woods, like Federer, has dominated an individual sport. But he hasn't quite, simply, been as dominant as Federer. And that's despite the fact that he was already experienced and a two-time major winner entering the decade.

Woods had his greatest year in 2000, winning the U.S. Open, British Open and PGA Championship. And he followed that up by completing the Tiger Slam with a win at the '01 Masters. After two more majors in 2002, however, he then had two down years with no majors, including the '04 season that featured just one win. In fact, he was only fourth on the PGA Tour money list in '04 as he battled swing changes.

Woods had very good 2005 and '06 seasons, winning two majors apiece, and then added one each in 2007 and '08 -- with the second victory his amazing, one-legged, comeback thriller at the U.S. Open. But he again went dry in 2009 despite pronouncing his health better than before his leg surgery.

So that leaves him with 12 majors for the decade and six runner-up finishes to Federer's 15 and four.

And Woods had a handful of majors in which he was never a factor.

I'll take Federer.

Finally, there's Bryant. He's won all four of his NBA titles during the decade. He's been among the league leaders in scoring and MVP votes most of the decade. And, well, he's been one of the top three players in the league for basically the entire decade -- and competed against studs such as LeBron, D-Wade and 'Melo.

But here's the knock on Bryant: He won those first three titles with Shaquille O'Neal, who was named the MVP of the NBA Finals each time. Then, when Shaq ditched L.A., Bryant struggled to do anything with his team for three straight seasons.

Obviously, in team sports other contributors are needed to help a star win championships. But during those down years, Bryant was often seen as selfish and disliked by teammates. He didn't do much to assuage such opinions and created all kinds of controversy around the team by saying he wanted to be traded, then refuting his statement, then reiterating it.

No doubt, Bryant has been amazing. But not on Federer's level.

The other "athlete" mentioned was Jimmie Johnson, who has won four consecutive NASCAR Spring Cup championships. I'll admit it -- I hardly follow NASCAR beyond knowing who wins the Cup each year. And maybe Johnson's greatness is as good as it gets. But he didn't reach the pinnacle of his sport until 2006.

So Johnson gets my vote for the best athlete of the last half of this decade.

There are arguments for others, no doubt, but when you look at the numbers and remember the moments, nobody has been better, nobody more clutch, and nobody more consistent than Roger Federer.

My top 7
1. Federer
2. Bryant
3. Johnson
4. Woods
5. Pujols
6. Tom Brady

7. Tim Duncan

Federer, as clutch as ever, proves he's the best

ON TENNIS

Andy Roddick played the match of his life Sunday. Time after time, he answered Roger Federer's serve by unloading another perfect 140-mph missile and holding his serve.

He refused to be broken. Ten times during the fifth set, he faced a do-or-die service game. There were minor chinks in his armor — points when one slip-up could have given Federer the edge the great champion needed to finish off the huge underdog.

But Roddick stayed strong and composed, somehow, and gave Federer an incredible battle that had me wondering if the greatest of all time would face a repeat of a year ago when he came so close to winning his sixth Wimbledon title only to fall just short.

Federer, however, proved once again why, yes, he should be considered the greatest player of all time. He never let the pressure of the occasion get to him. Sure, there were a few poor shots and he faced a couple break points in the historic fifth set.

But he never flinched.

And when he finally got his first championship point of the 4-hour, 17-minute match, he jumped on it. A couple of strong forehands followed by a botched Roddick forehand later, Federer was jumping in the air celebrating No. 15.

He's unbelievable.

Afterward, NBC commentator John McEnroe gathered the legends Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras together for a group interview. McEnroe then put Sampras on the spot, asking the 14-time major winner if it's fair to call Federer the greatest of all time.

Sampras had the appropriate response, saying he didn't want to make such a statement "with Rod sitting here." But it was apparent to me that if out of the public eye, Sampras would say what McEnroe was looking for.

McEnroe then asked Laver, the great champion who won two grand slams, what he thought about Federer's resume. Laver's response was also a good one — he said we should wait until Federer's career is over to determine his place in tennis history.

I, for one, never saw Laver play. I'm certainly aware that had he played all his matches during the Open era — which began in 1968, allowing pros to once again play grand slams after six years of not being allowed to — he could have many more than the 11 grand slams he finished his career with.

Laver undoubtedly is an amazing champion.

But when I examine the numbers, Federer is now the greatest of all time. Don't just consider his 15 grand slams. How about the record 20 grand-slam finals he's reached? Or the 21 consecutive grand-slam semifinals (and counting)?

Greatness is defined by consistency, and no one has been as dominant, consistently, as Federer. He's won at least a major in seven consecutive years and two or more in five of those years.

And he's not done. At 27, Federer has said he wants to play in the 2012 London Olympics, which would mean, I surmise, that he'll play in grand slams, if healthy, the next three and a half years.

I'd be shocked if he doesn't add at least another major to his resume.

Even if Federer retired this evening, I'd still call him the greatest. He, like Michael Jordan in his later years with the Bulls, demonstrated what makes the world's best athletes so incredible.

He clearly isn't as athletic as he was five years ago. He wasn't moving any better than Roddick, and if they had identical faces, it would have been extremely difficult to differentiate between the two players.

But Federer, like Jordan, has nerves of steel and is, along with Rafael Nadal, the most clutch player in the game today (although Roddick, if he can consistently play like he did Sunday, could join the conversation).

He is mentally as strong as ever. When the points count the most, when he needs a big serve or a backhand up the line, he rarely fails to deliver.

That's exactly what happened during a second set tiebreaker that was almost forgotten by the conclusion of the marathon fifth set. Roddick, already up a set, led 6-2 and was on the verge of taking a commanding 2-0 lead in sets. But that's when Federer delivered a smooth backhand, then two huge serves to close to 6-5.

After Roddick made his one big error of the match, failing to put away an overhand backhand volley, the tiebreak was even. Federer proceeded to seize the opportunity, quickly collecting the next two points to tie the match at a set apiece.

The finale should be remembered as much for that string of points as for the remarkable fifth set.

And, hopefully, it's remembered as much, also, for Roddick's resilient play as it's remembered because it marked Federer's record-braking grand slam win. As Laver said, "Andy Roddick was unbelievable how he played. His serving and the backhand down the line were incredible."

Which only makes Federer's accomplishment that much more impressive. Several of his 15 majors have come against worthy opponents who up their level of play against the world's now No. 1 player once again.

He beat Nadal in two Wimbledon finals before succumbing to the Spaniard a year ago. And he'd probably have more than one French Open title if not for Nadal, who beat him four consecutive times in Paris, including three straight times in the final.

On Sunday, Federer won yet another memorable final that shouldn't be forgotten for a variety of reasons.

And only cemented the greatest of all time's legacy.

As if it needed much cementing.

Who's more impressive: Tiger or Roger?

So we've reached the dog days of summer.

The basketball and hockey seasons are over. Football season is still more than two months away. And there are too many baseball games remaining to start talking about pennant races.

This means, of course, that it's a good time to talk about the individual sports that garner the most attention in this country -- tennis and golf. And when mentioning them, you have to start with two names: Tiger Woods and Roger Federer.

The similarities between the stars are striking. While Woods, 33, has six years on the 27-year-old Federer, consider these numbers.

Woods has won 67 golf tournaments during his professional career. Federer has won 59 singles titles and 67 overall titles if you include doubles.

Woods has won 14 major championships, leaving him four shy of Jack Nicklaus' all-time record. Federer also has 14, tying him with Pete Sampras for the record.

Oh, and they pose together in commercials for Gillette.

Both athletes, clearly, have had remarkable careers and will be remembered at least among the top two or three players in their sport if not the best. But whose accomplishments are more impressive?

Federer, to me, is amazing because of how quickly he burst onto the scene. He didn't win a grand slam until Wimbledon in 2003. And then he won three in 2004, two in '05 and three in both '06 and '07. He's added a single title each of the last two years and is vying to add to his '09 total as I write this.

Woods, on the other hand, turned pro in 1996 -- three years before Federer consistently competed at that level -- and has spread out his major titles a little more than his tennis sage counterpart.

He has won a major in nine different years and only won three of them in one year (2000).

Does that make what Woods has accomplished less impressive than Federer's quick rise to the top?

I don't think so. You have to look, rather, at Woods' consistency. He plays a sport in which guys can be competitive until they're 50 -- just consider Kenny Perry's run at the Masters -- and he's always in contention at majors.

No one doubts that Woods, as long as he stays healthy, will eventually break Nicklaus' record. We'll just have to wait awhile -- maybe more than five years.

Federer, on the other hand, is on the verge of breaking Sampras' mark. He could do it in less than two weeks at Wimbledon, where for a second straight grand slam he won't have to face his nemesis, Rafael Nadal.

He probably will.

Just like Woods, Federer's consistency is astounding. In a tennis majors, where seven wins (and 21 sets) are required to take home the championship, one bad match will doom you. As Nadal learned on his dominant surface of clay at the French Open, it can happen against anyone.

Nobody in the modern era has been better than Federer at coming out for every match ready to go.

In a golf major, there's not quite as much pressure. Woods can shoot a 74 in the opening round and still rally to win the tournament. He doesn't have to shoot four 66s.

So in that respect, winning seven tennis matches is a little more difficult than winning a golf major.

But then you must consider the game of golf and the tricks it plays on not only your average hacker, but the No. 1 player in the world. Woods has to deal with bad bounces, with putts that feel perfect and roll wide and, of course, with players who get those lucky rolls to jump into contention.

Federer has more control over each of his shots and where they end up.

To simplify, Woods plays a much tougher sport.

Which brings me back to square one: Who, up to this point in their career, has been more impressive?

My conclusion: Right now it's Federer, because of how quickly he's accumulated his wins.

But let's compare the numbers again in 10 years, when R.F. will likely be in the gallery, retired, watching Woods continue to play as the world's best golfer.

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.

Lasting memories from the 2008 sports year

There's an easy way to gauge how important, or remarkable, or special a day or event was.

A year passes, five years, even a decade — and you still remember many of the occasion's details. For instance, I'll never forget learning of the 9/11 attacks from a television in my history teacher's classroom. Most Americans, I'm sure, maintain a lucid memory of that morning now seven-plus years later.

That, of course, was a tragic day. During 2008, however, there were many memorable days — for good reasons — in the sports world. While the economy turned to slush, athletes and teams put together some of the most amazing performances I've seen in my relatively short 25 years on earth.

No, '08 wasn't a normal year in a lot of ways that are transparent to all of us. To me, now just a day into the new 365-day cycle, what stands out is how vividly I remember the year's greatest moments — not just what happened on the television screen in front of me, but what was going on around me.

For instance...

Sunday, Feb. 3: I'm sitting on the couch facing our 37-inch TV, my cousin J-bo on the adjacent couch to my left. The Giants have just shocked the sports world, upsetting the mighty, seemingly indestructible Patriots 17-14. And J-bo is giving it to me, letting me know in a clear, voluble tone that he picked New York to win while I made the safe pick. Ah, whatever. It was worth it. Best. Super Bowl. Ever?

Monday, April 7: Guess what? J-bo is right once again. This time, my friend Cosey is in town from Michigan to watch the national title game pitting Kansas and Memphis. And as Kansas brings the ball up the court trailing by three with the clock winding down (5 ... 4 ... 3), J-bo exclaims that the Jayhawks will make a 3-pointer to knot the game. And, sure enough, we watch in amazement as Mario Chalmers hits the shot of his life. It is the second championship game I've watched in 2008 — and both were the best of their kinds I've ever watched.

Sunday, June 15: I'm sitting in the living room of the waterfront community where the Lloyd Family Reunion has just begun. Family members whom I haven't seen for at least three years are streaming in, but my eyes are trained on the small TV about 10 feet in front of me. And I'm not the only one watching. Other Lloyds watch in awe as Tiger Woods calmly, daringly, dramatically sinks about a 15-foot putt to send the U.S. Open to a playoff. I'll always remember how the ball curled around the right edge of the cup before deciding to fall in. It couldn't have been better television for NBC.

Monday, July 7: This time, it's just me. I'm lounging on my aunt and uncle's couch this afternoon, absolutely captured by what I'm watching. One minute, Roger Federer hits the nastiest backhand up the line one can hit to stave off a match point. The next moment, every Federer groundstroke is chased down by the ubiquitous Rafael Nadal. It's the Wimbledon final, and it's the best tennis match — by far — I've ever seen. I wasn't able to watch it live the previous day because I'd been on a hike-gone-bad for the weekend, but I had my aunt DVR it. Then, Sunday afternoon and night, I had to avoid using my laptop or watching our crib's TV. It was brutal not being able to see the Yankees-Red Sox game, but I couldn't risk noticing the result of the match on ESPN's bottom line. I needed the element of surprise to truly enjoy it.

That, to state the obvious, is exactly what I did for about four solid hours on that couch. I won't forget how Federer played a great final three sets, but somehow hit possibly his worst shot of the day to end the match: He plunked an easy forehand into the net. And Nadal went into the stands, with darkness enveloping Centre Court, to celebrate his first Wimbledon title.

***I was living the outdoorsy, no-TV life in beautiful New Hampshire during the entire Olympics, so I didn't see any of Michael Phelps' eight gold-medal performances or Usain Bolt's three record-breaking runs. But, no doubt, those moments will not be forgotten for as long as those records stand (and that should be a very, very long time). One thing that won't skip my mind is viewing the amazing Sports Illustrated pictures of Phelps' victory by the slightest of margins in the 100-meter butterfly. And I'll always remember that the win was by one hundredth of a second.

Sunday, Dec. 29: Sadly, not all the memorable moments were positive. I'm at a table with my friend Bobby in the middle of Ann Arbor's Buffalo Wild Wings, an almost-empty glass in front of me and hundreds of football fans of all colors around me. Directly to my left stands a kid sports a Bears Brian Urlacher jersey. But at the moment, there is an assortment of cheers and groans. The clock has just wound down on the first 0-16 season in NFL history. And, get this, I got to witness the Lions' ultimate achievement of ineptitude from the state they call home. Only another 0-16 season could make the memory of this afternoon vague.

It's been that kind of year in sports. One full of moments that will be talked about for many years to come. Who knows? The Giants slaying of the Patriots has been called by many the greatest Super Bowl ever. Woods' performance on basically one leg was hailed as the most remarkable, brave display in golf history. And several tennis experts immediately claimed Nadal's five-set victory over Federer the sport's best match on that kind of stage — ever.

I saw most of the year's best moments. And I don't plan on forgetting where I was and what those around me and I were doing when those television screens portrayed such historical scenes.

Now 2009 has an almost-impossible act to follow.

Barkley's right: LeBron should be quiet

ON BASKETBALL

The Summer of 2010 remains a long way off. For instance, here are a few sports events that should happen before then:

The Detroit Lions will win a game. Maybe not multiple games, but a game. Hey, that's a start.

Roger Federer will break Pete Sampras' record of 14 grand-slam titles.

Tiger Woods will inch closer to breaking Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 major titles.

The Michigan basketball team will make its first NCAA Tournament since the long-ago year of 1998.

And on we go...

The point is that November 2008 is no time to be talking about that far-away summer. Not even the almighty LeBron James has that right — yes, even if he's asked that question by the oppressive New York media.

This is what James had to say when asked about the possibility of playing in a New York Knicks uniform after he becomes a free agent:

"I don't know if it's going to happen. But you have to stay open-minded if you're a Knicks fan."

Charles Barkley might have been a controversial player, but you could never doubt his loyalty to the team he was on. After James' visit to the Big Apple, the outspoken former All-Star gave James some sage advice (though he could have worded it more politically correct).

"If I was LeBron James, I would shut the hell up," Barkley said on Dan Patrick's radio show. "I'm a big LeBron fan. He's a stud. You gotta give him his props. I'm getting so annoyed he's talking about what he's going to do in two years. I think it's disrespectful to the game. I think it's disrespectful to the Cavaliers."

Barkley couldn't be more correct. And thankfully he spoke out, because we'll never hear a member of the Cleveland organization speak out against James — unless he kidnaps a cute kid or shoots himself in the leg, or something — because they don't want to do anything that will lower the probability of James re-signing with Cleveland in that much-talked-about summer.

To summarize, James has the Cavaliers hog-tied. He can do whatever he likes, within the law, and say whatever he wants. And hardly anyone in Cleveland will talk bad about him.

So how did James so eloquently respond to Barkley's comment?

"He's stupid. That's all I've got to say about that."

Nice and succinct. Hey, kind of like the answer James should have given when asked about the Summer of 2010.

Seriously. James is a smart man. He understands how the world works. He reads the news, knows what's being said, knows how certain comments are reacted to. So obviously he was aware of how his comments would be interpreted.

All he had to say was this (which, of course, is boring and typical, but also the right thing to say given the situation): "My focus right now is on the Cleveland Cavaliers. I'll deal with that decision when the time comes."

We hear smart athletes make similar statements all the time. Do we enjoy the non-answers to questions? Of course not — they're boring and don't tell us anything. But from the athletes' perspectives, they're doing what's right for their situations.

Now, the immediate impact of James' flirtation with the New York media hasn't seemed to affect his team. The Cavs are on a roll, having won all three games since their rout of the Knicks last Tuesday. While the players had to deal with questions about 2010 instead of their current dominant team, they haven't let the distraction affect their play.

Cleveland rested Monday night 14-3, three and a half games ahead of sagging Detroit in the Eastern Conference's Central Division. Its next game is a home rematch with the Knicks Wednesday night.

The Cavaliers are clearly the second-best team in the East behind the defending-champion Celtics. And last season's playoff series between the teams went to an epic seventh game, which Boston barely survived. So the difference between the squads isn't as big as some might make it out to be.

The point is that James is in a pretty good situation. It's not like he's part of a dysfunctional franchise run by idiots. This Cleveland team, with its current makeup, is capable of winning an NBA title. Sure, it'd help for James to have an All-Star sidekick such as Michael Redd.

But it's not like Cleveland did nothing during the offseason to help James' cause. The Cavs signed point guard Mo Williams, who is only the team's second-leading scorer and is dishing out 4.6 assists per game (also second on the team behind you-know-who).

James has nothing to complain about — except Cleveland's crappy weather — and to his credit, he has been very upbeat about the 2008-09 Cavaliers.

So why even think about 2010? Why look ahead at all. The opportunity that sits in front of James this season has to be as tantalizing as the thought of moving to New York in 2010:

James has a chance to lead the city arguably the most hungry for a major-sports title to a championship. By giving Cleveland a title, or sticking around and winning multiple trophies, James could be remembered as the single greatest athlete in the history of Cleveland.

If he goes to New York, he'll be fighting Ruth, Mantle, Gehrig, and company, and the handfuls of championships the various sports teams have captured. If he made the move and didn't win a title there, he'd be termed a failure. That wouldn't happen in Cleveland.

But that's James' decision to make ... in a year and a half.

Until then, he'd be smart to devote all his basketball attention to the great opportunity he has in Cleveland playing on one of the NBA's best teams in front of adoring sold-out crowds every night.

Live in the present, LeBron; the Summer of 2010 will be here soon enough.

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."

Federer-Nadal spectacle something to cherish

ON TENNIS

Every so often, something happens that reminds me why I love sports so much, why I've always wanted to be a sportswriter -- even if the pay is dismal.

That happened for me Monday afternoon.

I had been backpacking in North Carolina's Blue Ridge Mountains all weekend, which forced me to have my aunt DVR the Wimbledon championship matches. And after returning home Sunday night, I had to block myself out from the sports world to hold the suspense in the air.

But Monday afternoon, after waking up and speeding over to my aunt's, I witnessed greatness. Rafael Nadal's five-set, 4-hour, 48-minute victory over Roger Federer felt live to me even 24 hours later. It was one of those matches where you don't want either player to lose because of how good they both are.

There was Nadal, the clay-court master seeking his first Wimbledon title, taking the first two sets with an array of ground strokes that always seemed to paint the lines.

Federer, the five-time champ, the man with 12 grand slams, seemed done. The younger Nadal was wearing him out, right? Nonsense. Rather, there was Federer playing the most clutch tennis I've ever witnessed, winning tiebreaks in the third and fourth sets to even the match. He came back from a 5-2 hole, facing two Nadal serves, in the fourth-set tiebreak.

You know how there are plays that stick with you for a lifetime? If Federer had gone on to win the match, his backhand up the line to save a match point in the fourth set would have gone down, at least in my mind, as on of those. Federer saved three match points on his way to evening the match.

After that fourth set, and an emotional outburst from the world's No. 1 player, Nadal was seen resting, his legs shaking as he prepared for the do-or-die fifth set. From that image, I didn't know if he'd have the courage to win that elusive third set.

I shouldn't have doubted him. As darkness settled in on Centre Court, and I started to wonder if I could have tuned in Monday to watch the end live, the best players in the world continued to play remarkably, showing no signs of fatigue or failure to see the ball. Every time one threatened to break the other's serve, the server responded with a huge ace or a ferocious ground stroke.

The scoring was simple: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5, 6-6, 7-7. I could have left the TV running, gotten some popcorn and returned to the same pattern. Nadal was only broken once -- one freakin' time! -- the entire match.

But the tennis, despite its predictability, was way too enthralling to step away from. Nearly every point was earned. Unforced errors were at a minimum. And, most appealing, was how clutch the players continued to be.

Finally -- and luckily for the fans in attendance -- Nadal was able to break Federer, and then the five-time champ gave him the match with a weak forehand into the net. But that's not what should be remembered. There were way too many other special moments in the match.

John McEnroe did the color commentary for NBC, and even the three-time Wimbledon winner remarked at one point, "How lucky are we (to be here)?" Afterward, McEnroe called it the greatest match he's ever seen. That, in itself, is impressive -- he's been around for quite awhile.

For me, the match was one of the best sports events I've ever watched. Even though I didn't have a rooting interest, I found myself sitting up intently, first cheering for Federer to come back, then simply hoping for a dramatic final set. My wishes were granted.

If I could rate my top five sports-watching moments, Sunday's match would be included -- and I didn't even see it live! It was one of those events that non-tennis fans could enjoy, could get caught up in.

And the players should be appreciated for their greatness. In this country, men's tennis -- unfortunately -- is often an afterthought. Without a male American star, the sport is often close to ignored. I can't even remember the last time a player was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Not even Federer, who could -- and probably still will -- end up with the most majors of all time. And sports radio would rather talk about the NFL in June than the French Open.

Anyone who isn't paying attention is missing out.

This is a special time for the sport because of the two guys who attacked each other all over the court Sunday. Federer and Nadal have met six times in grand slam finals, with Nadal now holding a 4-2 edge. While the Spaniard is dominant at Roland Garros, the two have to be considered dead even on grass.

We'll see how Nadal progresses on the hard courts used at the U.S. and Australian opens. He's never played in a final at either tournament, but he's young and getting better. And the determination he showed on Centre Court, I'm sure, will help him become a hard-court champion.

As for Federer, those who thought he was over the hill at the age of 26 are nuts. He might have narrowly lost at Wimbledon, but he was still clearly the second-best player in the field. And he's still ranked the No. 1 player in the world.

But, yes, he's not getting any better like Nadal.

Which is why the Federer-Nadal matchup should be appreciated for as long as it lasts. Taking either player for granted would be foolish -- these kind of athletes don't come around every year. And when they're playing on the same court, they push each other to levels of play they didn't even know possible.

Federer seemed far from a tiring veteran player against Nadal, passionately chasing down balls all over the court and pumping his fist in adulation after big points. Nadal continues to amaze with shots that your TV screen doesn't do justice. He's far from the one-dimensional clay player he was once seen as.

Both players elicited shouts from me, sitting on the couch, of "What??" and "Are you surrious?" as the match progressed. Signs of legendary play, I call them.

And then they showed why tennis is truly a gentleman's sport. After the last point, after Nadal hugged his family members and became the first Wimbledon champion to climb into the Royal box, the awards presentation featured both men holding trophies. Then both said how much they admired the other. Federer was clearly in pain, having come up just short of his most memorable grand-slam win yet, but that didn't stop him from applauding the new champion and the first player since Bjorn Borj to win the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back.

Finally, Nadal was the most humble title winner I've ever seen. As excited as he was, he didn't say anything to take away from the man standing nearby. Both players clearly respect each other, and that's a positive for the sport. They're as competitive as can be, but once the final point's been played, there's no bashfulness.

It's just another reason to love men's tennis right now.

History is being made, superb tennis is being played, and I'm just thankful that I'm witnessing it one tournament after another.

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.

Gender differences in professional sports

Can you imagine the shock waves that would reverberate throughout the world if the following were to go down?

On a mundane Tuesday afternoon, Tiger Woods decides to put away the clubs -- forever.

And then, while every sports talk show host from Miami to Seattle is discussing Woods' shocking decision, Roger Federer puts down his competitive racket -- also for good.

The next freakin' day!

That, basically, happened this week in women's sports when golfer Annika Sorenstam (age 37) said this will be her last season one day, and the No. 1 women's tennis player in the world Justine Henin (age 25) immediately quit her sport the next day, not even waiting around to go for her fifth French Open title.

Yeah, a terrible week indeed for women's sports.

It's hard to argue against the greatness of both athletes. Sorenstam is arguably the best female golfer ever, winning 10 majors and eight player-of-the-year awards.

Henin came after many all-time greats, but she won't be forgotten. Overcoming many personal issues, she won seven grand slam titles -- which is second among current players behind Serena Williams' eight. Most impressive were her quartet of victories at Roland Garros.

So I could easily write a column lauding each woman for her great accomplishments, but I'd rather delve into why they will no longer be competing for championships.

Both women's retirements beg the question: Would Woods (age 32) and Federer (26) suddenly retire even when they know they can still compete at the highest level of their sports?

I highly doubt it. Both still have much to accomplish -- in particular, winning their sport's most majors and grand slams, respectively -- and, also, they both put their sports right at the top of their lives.

I don't know if that's the same for many female athletes, such as Sorenstam and Henin. It can't be denied that both of them could still go out and win the biggest tournaments next weekend. Sorenstam, in fact, was coming off a victory when she made the announcement.

Henin has struggled of late suffered from injuries, but it was a mere eight months ago that she won her second U.S. Open. I'm sure she could have gotten back to that pinnacle of success with hard work.

But she didn't want to. That's the simple retirement tale. She didn't have that same love for the game, and she is ready to do other things, saying, "It is my life as a woman that starts now."

While Brett Favre retired perhaps with a year or two left in the tank, it's not because he wants to do other things. Besides, he was in a much more physical, draining sport than tennis or golf.

The fact is that for many female pro athletes, sport isn't everything, doesn't mean quite as much as it does to most men.

This is very evident in tennis. If the Williams sisters put all their time and effort into the sport, they'd have at least a handful more grand slam titles than the 14 they share. With their talent, they'd both have aspirations of reaching the magical No. 18 that is number of grand slams won by all-time greats Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova.

(No, nobody's catching Margaret Court's amazing 24 grand-slam singles titles.)

But Serena and Venus love to create fashion lines and do T.V. commercials and star in Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue.

And, believe me, there is nothing wrong with any of that.

Nobody, however, will argue that those endeavors have taken away from time that could have been spent practicing and conditioning -- and that's also a possible explanation for all the injuries the sisters have sustained over the past few years.

Of course, the most glaring hurdle that female athletes often face is pregnancy. The L.A. Sparks' Lisa Leslie -- arguably the greatest female basketball player of all time -- sat out last season to have her first child. And I'm sure when Henin talks about being a woman, having a family is at the top of her priority list.

I know this is the 21st century, but stay-at-home dads are still few and far between. Most of the time, the mother is going to be taking care of the child. And that in itself can end careers.

In contrast, Woods was able to finish the U.S. Open and then see the birth of Sam Alexis Woods the next day. Of course, it would have made for a better story if he had actually won the tournament. But still not a bad few days.

Lack of money can't be the "it's time to retire" issue in golf and tennis. While the LPGA tournaments' pots are quite smaller than the PGA's, they're still pretty hefty if you do well -- and, of course, there are endorsement opportunities for players of Sorenstam's caliber. And women's tennis players make almost as much as the men. In fact, Wimbledon now has equal shares.

The only mainstream sport in which there's a glaring difference is basketball, where NBA players -- and even Europeans -- make way, way more than your average WNBA player. For many women's players to get by financially, they spend their "offseasons" competing somewhere in Europe.

(You've gotta really love the game to live on two continents each year.)

But the bottom line is, glory and records simply don't mean as much to female superstars as they do to the men. Sorenstam is excited about the life ahead of her, about the new marriage and family and delving into golf course design.

And that's great. She's doing what she's enthusiastic about. But she's also ending her competitive career five majors short of No. 1 on the all-time list, Patty Berg, who has 15.

Could you imagine Woods, in five years, saying, "You know, I'd rather start designing some stellar par-3s?" when he's three majors shy of Jack Nicklaus' record 18? No, I'd be surprised if Woods leaves the PGA Tour before he hits 50.

The truth for many female athletes is that once they hit a certain age -- which is usually in their 20s -- they become comfortable. They've got the money. They've got the trophy case. Why continue to pour everything into a game?

Thinking about it makes it impressive that Sorenstam stayed competitive for this long -- you don't hear of too many 37-year-old women still beating the tails of 19-year-olds.

So don't be shocked by what transpired in a matter of two days this week. And don't think that Sorenstam or Henin is regretting their decision. Rather, they're probably relieved, and loving the idea of beginning the next stage of their lives.

It might seem weird to us males. Heck, Julio Franco almost made it to 50 in Major League Baseball. But consider it a gender difference.

And definitely cheer the fact that we can be 100 percent certain that neither athlete injected herself with HGH to prolong her career.

Take that, Roger.

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.

Nadal a mighty strong No. 2

ON TENNIS

Rafael Nadal is akin to the Utah Jazz of the late 1990s.

While the Karl Malone-, John Stockton-led Jazz made the NBA Finals in consecutive years, both times they were sent home weeping by the M.J.-led Bulls.

Roger Federer has been the bull in the way of Nadal.

Yes, Nadal has won three straight French Open grand slam titles. Not bad at all for the 21-year-old. But just imagine how many more grand slams he would have if not for Federer.

Nadal lost in the last two Wimbledon finals to Federer, and there were other occasions where the world's No. 1 stopped Nadal en route to another grand slam.

But the difference between No. 1 and 2 is closing. I'm not doubting Federer's ability (that would be as bad of an idea as jumping in Lake Michigan right now). Rather, I'm loving Nadal's recent play.

(And I'm salivating over the possibility of a Nadal-Federer final in the Australian Open.)

Last night, Nadal overcame great first-set play by Jarkko Nieminen to defeat the 24th seed 7-5, 6-3, 6-1.

Nadal appeared close to flawless in advancing to the semifinals. As healthy as he's been in quite sometime, Nadal was able to cover the entire court while spraying an array of shots to fight off the energetic Nieminen.

Afterward, Nadal said it wasn't his best tennis. If he can win quarterfinal matches in straight sets without playing his best, watch out in the next round.

Federer, meanwhile, has looked human this tournament. In the third round, he was pushed to a fifth set by Janko Tipsarevic — a result I was shocked to see after I had fallen asleep before the match became very interesting.

And now Federer has a difficult trek to the final. While Nadal has just a semifinal against unranked tournament surprise Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Federer faces a quarterfinal against James Blake — who is playing extremely well — and then a possible semifinal versus young No. 3 seed Novak Đoković, who gave him a battle in last year's U.S. Open final.

I wouldn't be (that) surprised if Federer is upended.

But let me catch myself. What separates Federer from the rest isn't just his talent, but his will to win, his clutch shots when the pressure reaches its peak. Will an opponent be able to match him in this category? Will Nadal get that first grand slam win off clay?

I like the Spaniard's chances.

But until it actually happens, he'll remain the Jazz to Federer's Bulls. So close, yet so far.

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.

He's no Federer, but "Ferrer" is (kinda) close

ON TENNIS

Anyone who says tennis is not an athletic sport, did not stay up past their bedtime Tuesday night to watch the fourth round U.S. Open match between No. 2 seed Rafael Nadal and fellow Spaniard David Ferrer.

The two battled back and forth, neither giving an inch. I watched the first set at work, drove an hour home, fixed myself a late chicken-and-corn hot plate, and the third set was just beginning. It would be another two hours before the four-set match ended at 2 a.m. EST.

In all, the match took three and a half hours. And, remember, the commercial breaks in tennis are harmlessly short (not always to the players' liking). Nadal and Ferrer were on the court for a good three hours.

Finally, with both players' shirts and shorts soaked through with sweat, Ferrer finished off the upset — 6-7(3), 6-4, 7-6(4), 6-2 — when Nadal's lob sailed long. There would be no Federer-Nadal Part III in Flushing Meadows. Rather, the always-on-his-tiptoes Ferrer advanced to the quarterfinals, where he'll face Juan Ignacio Chela, who was a five-set winner Tuesday.

Somehow, I surmise, both players will summon up enough energy to put on a show when they meet Thursday. Which ain't a bad feat, considering the energy used Tuesday/early Wednesday.

With the remaining fans beginning to yawn and the announcers — I'm sure — dreading the beginning of Wednesday's long day of coverage less than 10 hours away, Ferrer unseated Nadal as one of the ATP Tour's most energetic, peripatetic players.

Ferrer showed absolutely no signs of fatiguing as the new day dawned and his opponent — the usually invincible Nadal — called for a trainer to massage a finger and indicated with body language that his hamstrings weren't right.

Ferrer bounced around while awaiting each serve from Nadal, then outhustled his fellow countryman from side to side, reaching balls that normally we only expect the quick-as-lightning Nadal to get to.

At the completion of the marathon, there was nothing to say except that Ferrer had been the better, quicker player and deserved to be moving on. And if he plays like he did Tuesday night in the quarterfinals and semifinals, could it be?

Federer vs. Ferrer in the final Sunday afternoon?

How cool would that be?

I'm sure Ferrer would muster up plenty of energy for that matchup.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that he's in impeccable shape.

U.S. Open lives up to the hype

ON TENNIS

There were plenty of ways I could have spent my Labor Day. You know, the traditional barbecue. Or maybe a canoe trip down the Huron River.

I could have watched some dramatic golf (wayta go, Lefty!). Or enjoyed a Cubs' loss (don't all of us outside of Cubs Nation revel in their defeats?).

But, alas, I was transfixed by tennis all day. No barbecuing. No canoing. No watching golf or baseball.

Thesis statement: Tennis rules the sports-watching section of my life right now.

Why? Because it is simply the best sport being played at the moment. Jabber all you want about the drama of college football (yes, the end of the Michigan-Appalachian State game was exciting). Dissect the upcoming NFL season all you want (no, the Lions aren't going to be good). Predict the result of baseball's pennant races (yes, the Tigers are probably done).

A lot is going on. But for the next six days, the only must on my sports-watching calender is the U.S. Open.

You want drama? You saw it Monday afternoon when fiery American James Blake and German Tommy Haas engaged in a five-set battle full of spirited volleys and back-and-forth action. I sat on the edge of my futon as Haas fought off three match points — showing absolutely no nervousness with each crisp forehand or backhand — before finally dispelling Blake in a tiebreaker (think overtime is nerveracking? A play-to-seven, win-by-two ain't bad, either).

You want impeccable play? That was reserved for Monday night, when Roger Federer, the most dominant athlete I know about (yes, he's better than Tiger), took on Feliciano Lopez. I wanted to see perfection so badly that when the digital cable refused to cooperate and let CNBC work, I decided to watch the webcast on my tiny Apple laptop.

When the streaming began, Federer — miraculously — was down a set to Lopez, whom, the announcers made sure to mention, was playing the absolute best tennis of his life. But it didn't last long. After surviving a difficult second set — showing his resolve in holding off the feisty Spaniard — Federer blew him away in the third set (6-1) and won 6-4 in a never-in-doubt final set.

Federer was so good, he won 35 consecutive points on serve after falling behind 0-40 in the first game of the third set. Yes, clap your hands in applause. If it were anybody else, it would be a mind boggling feat. But it was Federer. And it was amazing (but not that surprising).

Time after time, Federer hit "how'd he do that?" backhands either up the line or cross court, stunning a net-charging Lopez. All Lopez could do each time was shake his head in disbelief. If it weren't pitch black outside, I would have scampered outside after the match to try to emulate The Man — in vain, of course.

Maybe the most overlooked great part of tennis right now is that it's the lone sport in which the outcome is based almost entirely on the participants' actions. With the replay system in place at Flushing Meadows, players — with their keen eyes — can review calls they disagree with. And usually they're right about the challenges they make. But judges get 97 percent of the calls right, and you rarely see arguments between players and judges.

Additionally, reviews take a mere 10 seconds compared to the 3 to 5 minutes a football review takes. And even many football reviews seem flawed, as I witnessed late Labor Day night after the tennis was complete.

Florida State was trailing Clemson by six points in the final seconds when the Seminoles appeared to complete a pass down the sideline with 1 or 2 seconds remaining. However, the pass was ruled incomplete and the slooooooow Clemson timekeepers let the clock expire. A 4-minute delay, which forced the overly excited Clemson students to back off the field, didn't change the mind of the officials (who must have had a late dinner date scheduled, or something).

You just don't see that kind of stuff in tennis. Especially Grand Slam tennis.

It's the best sports spectacle on TV right now. Don't even talk to me about golf (where you can see a guy hit a shot... and then see where it lands) on TV. Only bass fishing is worse, and the spelling bee is better.

Watching football on the tube is great, but it still doesn't compare to being in attendance at a game, where you can see the entire field. And commercial length during football games is inane (the Michigan fans were ready to sling-shot rocks at the man in the red hat who stood on the field during commercials the other day).

Watching baseball on TV is great... if you have something else to do simultaneously (open mail, cuddle with your honey, pet the dog). Otherwise, you come to despise the announcers, who have to come up with mundane anecdotes to fill the between-pitches time — especially if old, deliberate pitchers are on the mound.

But tennis? Well, I have zero complaints. You can see the entire court. There are only brief breaks between points. Commercial breaks aren't long enough to make some toast. And the suspense — especially during night matches, when the Arthur Ashe Stadium crowd gets into it — make you feel like you're on top of the action (especially, I would surmise, if you've got one of those flat-panel TVs or whatever they're called).

Perhaps most importantly, Grand Slam tennis' appeal is its purity. There are no dark clouds surrounding the sport or its players. Just the matches. Just the sweat. Just the competition.

No steroids. No taking advantage of amateurs by universities and television networks. No dogfighting. No crooked judges. You know the stories.

In the next five days, I will watch Serena vs. Justine Part IV. I'll find out if Nadal can overcome his knee injury to set up Federer vs. Nadal Part III. Or, maybe, Roddick vs. Federer will provide for some drama before we get to that final Sunday.

Sure, there's a 99 percent chance Federer will make the final, but for some reason, that predictable outcome can't inhibit me from watching each match, each game, each point. From watching a match like Haas-Blake on Monday, because even though Blake lost, he should excite American tennis fans (he's got a lot of potential; not to mention grit).

A week from now, I'll be talking football. Lots of football. Baseball, too, will be a hot topic of conversation.

But right now, it's all about the Grand Slam tennis. I've got to enjoy it while it lasts.