U.S. Open 2015

   As Yogi was said to have said, "it's deja vu" all over again." Federer v. Djokovic will be meeting in the men's final.  In my most recent blog, I entitled the match between those two tennis legends at Wimbledon, "The Last Hurrah."  I may have spoken prematurely, as here is the rejuvenated Roger Federer back at another Grand Slam final against his old new foe, Novak Djokovic.
   In what has become tennis's new greatest rivalry, these two all-time greats are 21-20, Federer, over their many meetings.  While this gives Roger the slight edge, Djokovic has been overwhelmingly successful in their meetings at the big four Grand Slam tournaments, formally known as "majors."  In yesterday's semi-finals, to have watched Djokovic dispatch last year's Open champ Marin Cilic in under an hour and a half in three virtually uncontested straight sets, only to see Federer do much of the same to reigning French Open champion, Stan Wawrinka, was surprising less in the result than in the dominating way in which it happened.  So now we have the number two seed challenging the number one seed.  While Djokovic, already the Australian and Wimbledon champion, is the favorite, Federer did beat him in straight sets at their last outing, the pre-Open warm-up in Cincinnati.  Whether he can do so in a three out of five set format remains to be seen.  If he can, it would be an enormous achievement for Federer, who hasn't won a major since 2012, nor a U.S. Open since 2006.  If Federer were to win, he would add an 18th victory to his already staggering 17 major championships. Djokovic has only been a U.S. Open winner once in five tries, so this match is significant for him as well.  If he wins, it would be his 10th Grand Slam victory, and firmly cement him as one of the greatest players ever to hold a racquet. Among active players, this exalted category certainly not only includes, but is dominated by,  Federer, and Rafael Nadal, a 14-slam winner, currently in a puzzling eclipse.
   At Cincinnati, Federer unveiled a new shot in his already impressive repertoire.  This, a variant on the old "chip and charge" service return, has him rushing net on the second serve and half-volleying the service from the service line.  Although a risky and unsettling maneuver, it got him to the championship in the Cincinnati Open, a championship that has, oddly, evaded Djokovic.
   Lost amidst this legendary rivalry was the seemingly inevitable march by Serena Williams to her own Grand Slam, which would have made her only the fourth women in the history of tennis to do so.  Although to me, she is clearly the best women's tennis player of all time, achieving the Grand Slam has eluded her.  Only Maureen "Little Mo" Connelly, Margaret Court, and Steffi Graf have ever done it.  While we'll never know if Monica Seles would have made that list, she clearly seemed on the road to doing so, when a madman (ironically in misguided service to Seffi Graf) knifed her in the shoulder. This act of terrorism effectively ended Seles's championship run, if not her her career.  Indeed, one has to wonder if Steffi would have ever won a Grand Slam had not fate intervened in such a cruel and cowardly way.
   The great, and seemingly indomitable Serena Williams (amazingly but one of the two greatest sisters to ever play the game) had just, at Wimbledon, won her fourth consecutive major for the second time. This extraordinary accomplishment, dubbed (by her) the "Serena Slam" resulted in the Grand Slam suddenly being dubbed the "Calendar Grand Slam."  While winning four consecutive majors is no mean feat, it is not a "Grand Slam," an achievement which shouldn't be diminished by renaming it "The Calendar" Grand Slam.  The Grand Slam is simply what is is: winning all four majors in a, yes, calendar, year.  More, however, was on the line for Serena.  When she entered the semi-finals against the plucky Italian Roberta Vinci, unseeded, and ranked 43rd in the world, she had three incredibly records in front of her.  Not only was she two matches from the Grand Slam, but two matches from 33 straight victories at the Majors and 22 Major championships, records both held by the legendary Steffi Graf.  None of this, however was to be.
  After winning the first set handily, Serena found herself in a dual battle: one was against an increasingly crafty and able opponent, and the other against herself.  Serena repeatedly had said that (a) the Grand Slam was not a major focus of hers, and (b) she never battles nerves.  Really?  If so, that would make her unique among tennis players.  Ignoring the advent of a Grand Slam is like a pitcher being unaware of a no-hitter.  Trust me; that never happens.  What is so amazing about Serena is how tough she is mentally; a factor, when combined with her superlative skills, makes her almost indomitable.  The emphasis, is, of course, on "almost." That Vinci may have (in Serena's words) played "out of her mind," was hardly the case.  Rarely have I seen a player play smarter, more effective tennis.  Vinci had an old-fashioned game.  Not only did she hit exclusively one-handled backhands, but they were all slices.  As a skilled doubles player, she did not hesitate to come to net, and utilized the lob most effectively. For someone who thrives on pace, Serena received it only sparingly from the Italian.  Did Vinci play a great match?  Sure; she would have had to.  But Serena played well, too.  While she seemed a bit tentative (for her) on her ground strokes, this may have been in response to Vinci's relentless counter-punches as masterful court coverage.
   The turning point in the match, in my opinion, came in the third set in what has often been referred to as the "all-important seventh game."  In this case, it was.  In a back and forth service game by Serena, she had a game point against Vinci.  What followed was terrific rally, capped by what seemed to be a forehand winner by the American, pulling the Italian so far off the court that her return gave Serena an open court to hit to.  Williams did so, but not at a sharp enough angle and Vinci sliced a sinking backhand into the deuce court corner.  This set up a crosscourt forehand drive off of which Vinci amazingly hit a lunging drop volley.  Serena ran with all her might in a vain attempt to reach the ball.  She appeared drained, both physically and mentally.  From that moment on, she never led in the concluding set.  She had simply been outplayed in what had to go down as one of the most stunning upsets in tennis history.  In the end, Serena was simply human, and not invincible.  Roberta turned out to be nothing if not "inVinci-able."  Whether she can sustain such greatness in her Final against (equally unseeded) countrywoman Flavia Penetta, remains to be seen.
    In fairness to Serena, the hype that had accompanied her historic run was a bit much for anyone to endure.  The press coverage made it seem, prematurely, like a coronation.  As a human being, she had to downplay the importance of something being heralded as monumental.  She was, for example,  the subject of a laudatory cover story in the New York Times Magazine, that made even her excesses seem as positive parts of a court presence that shouldn't be bound by the constraints expected as others.  That the Williams sisters have faced racism on and off the court is beyond dispute.  This is particularly sad since, Jehovah's Witnesses are noted for their racial tolerance.  But the Williams's sisters story transcends race.  It is a uniquely American story, and should be celebrated as such.   The Time's Magazine article's thrust was "go girl; when you win, I win!"  I am not unmindful of the inspiration that Serena's achievements has given black girls and women everywhere, but this was a tennis tournament, not Louis vs. Schmeling or the 1936 Olympics.
   The news coverage of her defeat in the Times was not only first page, but multi-page news.  Will it diminish her achievements on the tennis court, both as a player and a black woman?  It shouldn't.  Even at the relatively advanced age of 33 (Vinci is herself 32), Serena has plenty of great tennis ahead of her.  Was this her best chance at a Grand Slam?  Probably so, but it is an achievement that has eluded some of the greatest players on the game; King, Navratilova, Evert, and. lest we forget, Venus Williams.  On the men's side, very few have even won three of the four, with only Don Budge, and the immortal Rod Laver (who did it twice) winning Grand Slams.
   So don't mourn Serena's loss.  Her place in tennis--and civil rights--history is firmly entrenched.  She was responsible for this being the first women's final to ever outsell the men's.  Feel bad for the people who paid as much as $1,500 for a ticket to what they had hoped to be a Serena final and to be a witness to history.  Tickets are now down to a more earthy $250, and there will, unfortunately, be many empty sets at today's all-Italian women's final, whose combined age is 65!  But that, of course, is both tennis and life.  It's the fact that there's no such thing as a sure thing is what keeps us watching.  In truth, upsets are one of the most exciting things in sports.  Surely this one was, and, after all, that's what many people will be rooting for in the men's final tomorrow.  Stay tuned.