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.

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.

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."