SUPER Saturday did not need one of the graceless Williams sisters once again either overcoming or falling to their shamelessly-advertised maladies.
It did not require Svetlana Kuznetsova, outclassed by Justine Henin, to finally provide a compelling women’s final. Nor was it necessary to have more play, or words, from Andy Roddick, who takes the cake for making an issue of an obviously jestful “piece of cake” comment by Roger Federer, as if he had recorded a 143-11 record over the last two years by underestimating his opponents.
This tournament never needed Americans, or the above Americans to act typically like Americans, or even Federer’s clay nemesis, Rafael Nadal, to get another shot today at the greatest player in the world. That would have been nice, but so is a final matchup with Novak Djokovic, the last person to beat Federer, last month in three sets.
But in the likelihood things turns out differently this time, the only disappointment at the 2007 U.S. Open would be failing to fully comprehend the intricate genius of the Swiss Chronometer, or to appreciate our good fortune to witness it repeatedly.
“Lucky,” said Nikolay Davydenko, a loser in three sets in the wind yesterday, sounding three sheets to that wind. “Sometimes I try to make moving him right, and left and some points he just plays like so good.
“Running, you get not great control from the baseline. But he just keeps hitting the ball back. You like surprising because you don’t know how it is possible.”
The Russian, ranked fourth in the world, is 0-10 against Federer. One can only presume he was trying to say that some of Federer’s shots are so consistently amazing, they look lucky.
That mystique is the reality of Davydenko, Roddick (1-14 vs. Federer), and everyone, except Nadal on clay. Today Federer will play in a record 10th consecutive Grand Slam final. A win would give him 12 championships in his last 18 Slams. At age 26, he would be just two short of Pete Sampras’s record 14 and still needing just the one French Open title that Sampras never had to become the unquestioned best male player in the Open era.
When Sampras is passed, by 2009 if not sooner, arguments will begin as to the greatest player of all time. Fifteen or 16 Federer slams will leave a case only for Rod Laver, who when these were amateur-only tournaments, twice won every slam in a calendar year and would have won more had he not decided to earn a living.
For a long time after the Open era began in 1968, mostly Australians played the Australian Open. So you can’t count slams, but only Laver had a compact era of dominance comparable to this one by Federer. And only a fool has become bored watching it, or tries to discredit competition that hits harder and is better conditioned than in Laver’s day.
Go ahead, make your year with just one five-set win over Federer. And who, besides Nadal, on his home red mud, has done it consistently? The emergence of Djokovic adds another, welcome test for Federer, who will have to be better today than he was yesterday. And who doesn’t believe he won’t be absolutely as good as required?
“I’m always well prepared for majors,” Federer said yesterday. “I don’t have hiccups early, stupid five-setters. . . . If my serve doesn’t work, my baseline game helps me out. So . . . I’m still okay.”
His backhand, razor sharp against Roddick and Feliciano Lopez, wobbled in the wind, making yesterday one to play it safe, which Federer did, until after being broken three times in the third set, he won the last four games.
“I never underestimate my opponent and I can play the moment very well,” he said. “There’s also one very important part to my game, to understand the moment.”
We had better understand how extraordinary this one is, too. And celebrate it as long as it lasts.