Sports Articals

Record, records—all made to be broken.

As the days tick by towards the summer of 2010, so we edge closer to two particularly significant mileposts in tennis. And both are within touching distance of the king of the record books, Roger Federer.

The first record is up for grabs at the very next tournament, Rome, and it could go to one of two men: Federer or Rafael Nadal.

It is the record for the most Masters titles held by Andre Agassi. He began his run at Miami in 1991 at age 20. He drew the line, with 17 trophies, in Cincinnati in 2004.

It seemed to be a record that would stand for a good many years, indeed a good many decades. It had, after all, taken him 15 years to accumulate those 17 titles, and few men were likely to play at his level over such an extended career.

But what were the chances? Along came not one but two such men. Their achievements were, if anything, even more extraordinary, for they reached 16 apiece in far fewer years.

Federer started his run only nine years ago, and has already outstripped Agassi’s 60 ATP titles with his own 62nd in Cincinnati in 2009.

Rafael Nadal, though, reached his 16th Masters title at Monte Carlo last week, just six years after winning his first. In the process, he set one record after another: the fastest to win five titles, the fastest to win 10 titles, and the fastest to win 15 titles.

Nadal is the favorite to win in Rome next week, and is therefore the favorite to equal the record held for fewer than six years by Agassi. A win in Madrid the following week would give Nadal the record outright.

So although Federer has reached the most Masters finals—25—and has twice won four Masters in a single season, he will probably see Agassi’s record go to his rival.

But Federer has had bigger fish to fry, still has bigger fish to fry.

If Agassi thought his Masters record would stand the test of time, Pete Sampras was equally certain that his Grand Slam tally would stand for a good deal longer than the seven years it took Federer to outstrip the American’s 14 titles.

Sampras took 13 years to acquire his record. In eight years, Federer not only equalled but also overtook it with 16 Slams.

In the extraordinarily competitive and punishing world of the men’s tour in the 21st century, that’s some achievement.

Now, if Federer is interested in a new target, he may have to turn his attention to the ladies. In the Open era, the record is Stefanie Graf’s 22 Slams. Remove Nadal from Federer’s career, and that total might just have been possible.

With so little purchase on the Roland Garros trophy in particular, though, it has become—in all likelihood—impossible.

“I haven't put a number on how many Grand Slams I want to try to win. Whatever happens happens.” (Australian Open press conference)

Federer’s grip on Grand Slam records, however, is tighter than the mere number of titles. He has laid down statistics that almost take the breath away with their consistency.

In addition to winning 16 titles, he has reached more Slam finals than any other man: 22.

He’s the only man ever to reach the final of all four Grand Slams in back-to-back calendar years (2006–07), and he did it again in 2009.

He holds the all-time record for consecutive Slam finals—10—and is the only man to twice appear in eight consecutive Slam finals.

No other man has reached at least six consecutive finals at two different Slams—Wimbledon and the U.S. Open—nor reached the final of all four Slams at least four times.

Then there’s the record that many regard as the most untouchable of all—23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals, from Wimbledon 2004 to Australian Open 2010.

These just scratch the surface of his achievements.

Yet Federer claims such records are incidental to his tennis career. If they come as a by-product of winning matches, he’s delighted. If they don’t, he’s pragmatic. But Federer is an assiduous student of tennis, and undoubtedly knows where he sits in the hierarchy. He knows he’s already laid it on the line for everyone who follows.

There are, however, a lot of other boxes to be ticked on the Federer resume, and there’s a particularly large one looming.

Since he regained the No. 1 ranking in July 2009, Federer has been counting down the weeks until he equals—and attempts to overtake—the Pete Sampras record of 286 weeks in the top spot.

He is already head and shoulders above every other player for consecutive weeks at No. 1—237. Now he could overtake the overall Sampras total just the other side of the French Open, on the Monday after the first week on grass: June 14th to be precise.

Between now and then, Federer is scheduled to play the Masters in Rome, the 250 in Estoril, the Masters in Madrid, Roland Garros, and finally his first grass tournament in Halle.

With a current lead of 3,300 points over Novak Djokovic and 3,700 over Nadal, Federer is guaranteed to stay No. 1 until after Madrid, regardless of his results. But that leaves him four weeks shy of the record.

Much therefore depends on Paris: whether he loses early, and whether Djokovic or Nadal win all their remaining clay tournaments.

While it is not a mathematical certainty that Federer will reach 287 before one or the other of those men overtakes him, it would take a seismic shock to dislodge the Swiss record-making machine.

So with that one close enough to taste, what next for the man who seems to have everything?

“I almost have to aim so high, you know, staying No. 1 in the world, trying to win the Grand Slams, trying to win here in Miami. It's just something that I've gotten used to over the last seven years really, to aim extremely high.” (Miami press conference)

With the Australian Open in the bag, Federer was besieged by questions about his hopes for the calendar Grand Slam. He was dismissive of any strategy: “It’s not like it’s my No. 1 goal.”

Perhaps he’s thinking a bit longer-term, towards 2012. For he has said, on more than one occasion, that he hopes to play in the London Olympics on his favorite Wimbledon court.

With the prospect of that elusive gold medal, he may fancy building his 2012 schedule around a “golden Grand Slam.” It sounds like a tall order, but it’s clear he is already modifying and slimming down his tournament schedule. And he has frequently said he believes he can play great tennis until well into his 30s.

Then there’s the Davis Cup. He played regularly in this event in his early years, and still flirts with it at key stages in Switzerland’s ties. But he is not yet willing to jeopardize his preparedness for the major tournaments. Perhaps after 2012, his priorities will change.

A more immediate target—and one that may tie in nicely with any Grand Slam aspirations—might be a nice plump total of weeks as world No. 1.

If Federer gets the Sampras record ahead of Wimbledon, he could look a little further ahead to the U.S. Open and see the prospect of 300 weeks at No. 1.

There are so many 'ifs,' so many 'buts,' and so many young guns in hot pursuit.

Federer has set the standard for a generation, and remained the man to beat for six years. Even with his superlative gifts and dedication, it is a hard road to travel.

Just ask Sampras and Agassi.

One thing’s for sure. When Federer decides to call it a day in tennis, it will simply herald a new beginning:

“I’ve always been a big believer in looking at the big picture. It’s not about ‘What will we do tomorrow?’ It’s about ‘How will my life and tennis look in the next five years?’” (The Times, November 2009)

by Ben Pronin

Roger Federer: We’re a month into the new decade, a month into the new tennis season, and it already feels like the same old crap, different year. I legitimately needed a day to digest Federer’s 16th major title and 4th at the Australian Open. Who saw that one coming? More or less, everyone. After the Aussie Open last year, I was pretty devastated when Federer lost in another 5-set epic toRafael Nadal. Since he’s merely extending his slam record, I’m at a loss for words. Everyone is talking about the depth of the field and all the talent and the up and comers and Nadal and Murray and Cilic and this guy and that guy.Until Federer stops reaching slam finals on consistent basis, I don’t think it’s ever safe to bet against him. He is on a whole different playing field and tennis fans of whichever player are going to have to accept that. All we can do is enjoy his tennis and hope that he stops winning everything some day. Just think, if he hadn’t lost focus against Juan Martin del Potro in the US Open final, he’d hold all 4 slam simultaneously for the first time in his career… is that what people call a decline nowadays?

Before I move on from the world number 1, I’d like to say that I wasn’t overly impressed with Federer’s speech during the ceremony. “I can cry like Roger,” Murray said. “It’s just a shame I can’t play like him.” How many players do you think nodded their heads when they heard this? This is easily the quote of the Federer Era. In an attempt to comfort Murray, all we got from Federer was, “You’re too good of a player not to win a Grand Slam, so don’t worry about it.” Not that this sounds bad coming from a guy who’s won 16 slams, but I was hoping to see more.

Plenty of fans felt like Federer-Murray matches don’t have that special extra something that Federer-Nadal matches have. This is true on and off the court. On the court it’s the result of having played so many important finals, you can’t help but carry around that special something, but the way Nadal draped his arm around Federer to comfort him, that goes beyond simlpy playing a great match. I was hoping to see something like that from Federer but instead he rambled on about how happy and perfect his life is. Way to rub it in, Rog.

The Rest: Before we had to watch the exact same outcome we’ve been seeing for over six years, this year’s Australian Open was pretty exciting. This event usually is but this year’s was a little more interesting since the majority of the tennis world was convinced there is too much parity to predict a winner. The Australian Open has a tendency to have a surprise finalist/semifinalist.

Perhaps breakthrough is a better word than surprise this year. Andy Murray and Marin Cilic were both first time semifinalists and Murray was a first time finalist. To me, this still wasn’t even close to as surprising as Fernando Verdasco or Jo-Wilfried Tsonga’s results. Cilic was pegged as a dark horse since reaching the US Open quarterfinals and he showed absolutely awesome grit in getting to the semifinals. With the passivity of Murray’s game, I can’t help but think Cilic would’ve been in the final if he hadn’t run out of gas. Either way, credit to him for going down swinging.

Before I talk about Murray, I want to say a few words about the other men who made the second week of the Aussie Open. First, Ivo Karlovic made some great luck for himself in somehow reaching the fourth round, and he even expanded on that luck by hitting a bunch of let cords to break Nadal and get a set off him. The other giant, John Isner, played some great tennis to beat Gael Monfils but couldn’t hold his nerve against Murray and fell apart at the end. Karlovic’s result is borderline irrelavent in the grand scheme of things but Isner should be pleased and eager to continue improving.

Gonzalez tends to play some of his best stuff in Oz having been a finalist in 2007 and beating Richard Gasquet in an epic 5-setter last year. He did a great job of recovering from a 5-setter in the third round to really take it to Andy Roddick. But a bunch of bad calls really got into his head and Roddick’s serve turned out to be too much for the Chilean to handle. Roddick apparently started feeling pain in his shoulder after that match which caused him some serious problems in a 5-set loss to Cilic in the quarterfinals. He fought hard but Cilic was too tough and playing too well.

Speaking of Cilic, my favorite match of this tournament was his epic win over Del Potro. A 5-set power-fest that really showed what these guys are made of, and they’re made of a lot. They have more finesse than they’re given credit for but Cilic was the better mover and less antsy guy on the day. Like I said, I think he would’ve been in the final if he hadn’t played 22 sets heading into the semifinals.

The top half of the draw didn’t have as many interesting matches. I don’t remember who Novak Djokovic and Tsonga beat, Lleyton Hewitt should start considering retirment, and Nikolay Davydenko redefined winning ugly after Verdasco double faulted a mere 20 times in a 5-set loss. The quarterfinals were rather disappointing from a quality stand point. Davydenko really took it to Federer before the Swiss master dominated for over two sets. And Djokovic had the runs.

To me, Tsonga was the disappointment of the week. After trash talking Djokovic, he played up his chances against Federer only to come out and give up after three games. It’s funny because before the match he mentioned how the French players are known to be mentally weak but he’s an exception…

The final was really overhyped only because the straight set result went against 99.9999% of all predictions. I said I’d respect Murray if he went down swinging, and he did. I was really pulling for him to take the third set and it was a shame he couldn’t close it out, but he really sealed his own fate by being so defensive. I know Murray fans are probably sick of hearing this and I was too until Patrick McEnroe went extra lengths to point it out.

I don’t remember when McEnroe did this, but at one point during a change over, he replayed a point where after a rally Murray got a short ball. He paused the tape to emphasize both players’ positions. Federer was well behind the baseline whereas Murray was inside the baseline. The ball was short and Murray was about to hit a backhand, his best shot. Personally, I think he should’ve gone up the line but either direction would’ve worked as long as he hit it deep and with some pace. When the tape played, you watched Murray spin the ball short and into the middle of the court. I was flabberghasted. Murray really needs to work on that if he wants to win a slam. That and his serve.

A quick Federer mention; he was hitting his backhand better than I’ve seen in a long time and I think that gave him a lot of confidence from the very beginning of the match.

I can’t write about a slam and not mention Nadal. There’s not much to say except for I really hope he gets better and starts playing his best again. I’m not his biggest fan but tennis needs him and so does Federer. After such a dominant performance, Federer’s aura is going to slowly creep back. Nadal is the only one who can keep him in check (not that I want him to keep beating Federer). Aside from that, you really gotta feel for the guy. To have such serious injuries when you’re so young, it’s not easy no matter how successful you are. As much as I wanted Djokovic to be number 2, it seems really unfair that Nadal can’t even put up a fight.

Overall, it was a really good tournament for some players (Murray and Cilic) and really bad for others (Nadal and Roddick). Hopefully all the injuries heal in time for the Masters in March and those that might be mentally weak right now step their games up and start smacking winners and aces (I’m looking at you, Novak). And just to clarify, before the start of the tournament, the best player in the world and the number 1 player in the world were two different people. As of right now, there’s no disputing that Roger Federer is easily both.

© Getty ImagesRoger Federer has set many records that may never be broken.

Like Mozart and Michelangelo, Roger Federer’s body of work ranges from exceptional to sublime. The Swiss has set multiple records that will likely stand the test of time. Below we look at 10 of Federer’s most amazing feats and quantify [with totally unscientific methodology!] the chances of the achievements being matched or topped during his lifetime.

Note: Story updated after 2010 Australian Open

1. Winning five consecutive titles at two different Grand Slam tournaments

About The Feat: Since the abolition of the Challenge Round [when the defending champion was automatically placed in the following year’s final] Federer is one of just four players to win the same Grand Slam tournament five consecutive years. [Tilden six at the US Open 1920-25; Emerson five at the Australian Open 1963-67 and Borg five at Wimbledon 1978-81]. But Federer is the only player in history to win two different Grand Slam titles [Wimbledon 2003-07 and US Open 2004-08] for five consecutive years.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 1%

2. Winning 16 Grand Slam titles in the span of 27 majors

About The Feat: After going titleless in his first 16 Grand Slam tournaments, Federer has made up for lost time, winning 16 of his next 27. Beginning with his 2003 Wimbledon breakthrough, the Swiss has won more than 50 percent of the majors he has contested. In contrast, Pete Sampras won his 14 majors over a span of 45 Grand Slam tournaments.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 2%

3. Reaching 18 of 19 consecutive Grand Slam finals between Wimbledon 2005 and Australian Open 2010

About The Feat: This record goes beyond consistency. It speaks to Federer’s unrivaled excellence at the pinnacle of the sport – the Grand Slams – and his ability to play his best under pressure and when it counts most. No other player has come even close to a streak of Grand Slam finals appearance like this – and no one likely ever will.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 3%

4. Reaching 23 consecutive Grand slam semi-finals (or better) from Wimbledon 2004 to Australian Open 2010

About The Feat: To put this feat into context, Federer’s ongoing streak of contesting 23 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals is more than double the length of Ivan Lendl’s 10 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals reached – the next best streak. The last time Federer didn’t make the last four at a major was in 2004 at Roland Garros, when he was beaten by three-time champion Gustavo Kuerten in the third round.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 3%

5. Winning 24 consecutive finals

About The Feat: In 2004 and 2005 Federer won 22 consecutive finals in which he appeared [in addition to winning his last two finals of 2003] for a streak of 24 straight finals won. That’s astonishing considering that Federer was going up against the second best player in each of those particular tournaments. In finals, you not only have to play well, you have to play clutch. Federer’s finals streak ended at the last event of 2005, the Tennis Masters Cup. Although he came into the tournament with an ankle injury, Federer led arch rival David Nalbandian two sets to love and later, in the fifth set, was two points from the title on his own serve before Nalbandian rallied to win a fifth-set tie-break. It was all down hill from there for Federer, who in 2006 lost in four finals (all against Rafael Nadal) and only won 12 titles :)

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 4%

6. Reaching all four Grand Slam finals in the same season three times

About The Feat: Only two singles players have ever reached all four Grand Slam finals in the same year: Rod Laver, who did it twice when he completed calendar-year Grand Slams in 1962 and 1968, and Federer, who did it a remarkable three times in the past four years. Considering also that Federer is the only man to reach all four Slam finals in the same year on three different surfaces (hard court, grass and clay), it seems even more unlikely that someone will top that feat in Federer’s lifetime.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 4%

7. Three-year period of dominance

About The Feat: Between 2004-2006 Federer went on a tear that is unlikely to be matched during any future three-year period, compiling a 247-15 match record. His season records during that time were 74-6 (2004), 81-4 (2005) and 92-5 (2006). He won a stunning 34 titles, including eight Grand Slams, nine ATP World Tour Masters 1000s and two Tennis Masters Cup titles. Had he served out the 2005 Tennis Masters Cup final against David Nalbandian [instead of losing in a fifth-set tie-break] Federer’s season record that year would have been 82-3, the same as John McEnroe’s unrivaled match record in 1984.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 5%

8. Holding the No. 1 South African Airways ATP Ranking for 237 consecutive weeks

About The Feat: Federer’s 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1 in the South African Airways ATP Rankings (from 2 February, 2004 to 17 August 2008) is best contextualised by looking at the next best streaks: Jimmy Connors at 160 weeks, Ivan Lendl at 157 weeks and Pete Sampras at 102 weeks. Federer, who has been No. 1 a total of 268 weeks (as of 1 February, 2010), is now within reach of Sampras’ all-time (non-consecutive) record of 286 weeks at No. 1. [Federer has five times finished as ATP World Tour Champion, just one year shy of Sampras’ six finishes as year-end No. 1. But Sampras finished No. 1 six consecutive years - a separate feat that Federer, now 28, is unlikely to ever match.]

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 7%

9. Sixty-five consecutive grass-court match wins

About The Feat: Federer’s 65 straight wins on grass could so easily have ended at 39 when he saved four match points against Olivier Rochus in the Halle quarter-finals in 2006. But history shows that Federer scratched out a win and ultimately extended his record streak to 65 before he lost 9-7 in the fifth set to Rafael Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final. With modern-day grass-court tennis no longer favouring a dominant serve-volleyer like a Sampras, Becker or Edberg, it will be more difficult for one player to dominate on the surface and threaten Federer’s streak.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 12%

10. Winning one Grand Slam title a year for eight consecutive years

About The Feat: By winning the 2010 Australian Open in January. The Swiss has now won at least one Grand Slam title for eight consecutive years, equaling the record streak of Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg. What are the chances that someone (other than Federer) will extend the record to nine or more seasons? It sounds a tough record to break, but Rafael Nadal is already riding a five-year streak. And despite his lapse at Roland Garros last year, the Spaniard is likely to be the leading contender for that title for many years to come, as well as at the Australian Open and Wimbledon, where he is a former champion.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 25%

By Pete Bodo

Ultimately, it may be remembered by tennis historians and students of the game as The Tiebreaker, II (That Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe 18-16 fourth-set tiebreaker in the 1980 Wimbledon final will always lack a numeral). Only this time, the theme wasn't the ferocity of the clashing wills or the velocity of the serves and passing shots. The Tiebreaker, II, will be discussed in hushed tones, always with a hint of pity (among the kind) or triumphalism (among the callous), because of the enormous, nearly tragic error it embodied, and the way that critical misjudgment by Andy Roddick opened the floodgates of glory for Roger Federer.

It happened like this: Roddick, playing at the peak of his game, had won the first set and capitalized on two errors by Federer to build a 6-2 lead in the second-set tiebreaker - four set points for a two-set lead. Federer wiped away the first three of those points with a clean backhand winner, an ace, and an unreturnable service. Roddick had one more chance, and he went bold. He hit a second serve and set up a perfect forehand approach. As he hurtled toward the net behind his crisp shot, Federer hit a forehand down the line. The ball looked as if it were going out. Pete Sampras, whose surprise appearance a little earlier in the Royal Box had sent a restless murmur through the crowd, certainly thought it was heading that way. "It looked to me like Andy just changed his mind," Pete told me later. "That was a huge moment."

Roddick speared the awkward, high-backhand volley and drove it way wide. He explained later: "There was a significant wind behind him on that side. It was gusting pretty good at that time. When he first hit it, I thought I wasn't gonna play it. Last minute, it looked like it started dropping. I couldn't get my racket around on it. I don't know if it would have dropped or not."

Nobody will ever know - the waters bursting forth carried away that shot - as they did so many other breathtaking winners and agonizing errors hit by the two men. It took those waters a long time to reach flood stage and sweep Federer into the vault of history, and for that we must credit Roddick. He miraculously recovered his composure almost immediately, and continued to play commanding tennis on equal terms with Federer for the rest of the match. He surrendered the bone when he was broken for the first time, in the 77th and final game of the match. The final score was 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14.

By the time it was all over, the sky over Hampstead Heath bore traces of evening rose and the elapsed time stood at 4:08. The match was so long that it seemed as if The Tiebreaker, II had occurred in another time and another place, perhaps when men wore those long white trousers Federer had on in the warm-ups through an entire match. And to his credit, Roddick found the determination and composure to make it seem that something as ghastly as that second-set tiebreaker could only have happened to someone else - not the 26-year old Yankee who on this day matched Federer's ground play, and was unperturbed by seeing Federer nearly double his own ace count, 50-27.

So much for the universally-held idea that this was to be a battle of Roddick's monstrous serve against Federer's return and his fetching arsenal of groundstrokes. Roddick put it this way, when I asked if this reverse mirror-image surprised him as it did most of us. "I don't know. You know, he served great. I didn't get a lot of second looks. I felt like when we were in rallies for the last couple of sets, I was actually doing all right and holding my own, if not more. But he just served great. He did what he had to do. If he wouldn't have served as well, I'd probably be sitting here in a better mood."

Here are some numbers to play with: 42 percent of Roddick's serves went unreturned, compared to Federer's 46 percent. Roddick put 70 percent of his first serves into play, compared to Federer's 64 percent (put into context with Federer's ace count - this is a tribute to Federer's superb placement). Roddick's fastest serve clocked in at 143 mph, but Federer was right up there with 135. Yet all of this wonderful serving - and trust me, it was like watching twin, competing fireworks displays, the engineer behind each determined not to be outdone by the other - was mere background for the battle of will and nerves.

Roddick's greatest triumph was his ability to rebound from that devastating second-set tiebreaker and continue to play what may be remembered as the match of his life. Federer's towering achievement (leaving out the little detail about this being his record 15th Grand Slam title) was his ability to escape the second-set gallows and then never, ever grow discouraged as Roddick rained down hail fire and whistled Nadal-esque rockets past him from the baseline.

There was, however, one oddity about this confrontation: the lack of serve-and-volley play by both men on a day when they both served lights-out. Roddick won three of his four serve-and-volley points, while Federer won four of his seven direct advances on the net. Roger seemed determined to show that he would, over time, win off the ground; Roddick appeared to reply, "No way." At first it appeared suicidal, but it slowly morphed into a monument to Roddick's improved game and his combative spirit.

Federer's poise underscored a reality of the Swiss gentleman's career that is easily neglected while everyone focuses on the apparent ease of his game and his signal aplomb. Roddick put it best when he was asked to comment on Federer's qualities as a champion. "I don't know where to start there. . . He was having trouble picking up my serve today for the first time ever, but he just stayed the course. . . You didn't even get a sense that he was even really frustrated by it. He just toughed it out. He gets a lot of credit for a lot of things, but not how a lot of the time, how many matches, he kind of digs deep and toughs it out. He doesn't get a lot of credit for that because it looks easy to him (sic) a lot of the times. But he definitely stuck in there today."

For his part, Sampras said: "Roger has that ability to make the tough things look easy. He was also a little lucky today, but that's not surprising. The great ones are always a little lucky."

Ultimately, the kind of patience to which Roddick alluded - "patience" being a word not frequently applied to a man as mercurial and fleet as Federer - was not just the key to this match, but to the new champion's entire year so far. Here was a man many were willing to write off as a spent cartridge after his game and customary sangfroid and confidence appeared to utterly desert him in the Australian Open final.

Here was a man who seemed in utter disarray during the early U.S. hardcourt season, the pliant and easygoing genius devolving into a racket smashing, suddenly introverted and belligerent champion who appeared to feel - for the first time - the full weight of his obligations as the greatest player of his and perhaps any time.

Here was a man who struggled, sometimes mightily, when the one major title that eluded him - and which held the key to his legacy - was offered up to him on a gilt-edged plate by virtue of Rafael Nadal's shocking loss on Parisian clay.

Here was a man who was thrown an assortment of knuckle and curve balls in the way of opponents and twists and turns of fate on the road to his French Open and Wimbledon titles.

Through that entire period, Roger was sometimes moved to say what he must have felt - that not even a champion of his caliber is absolved from the ups-and-downs of life. There's nothing wrong with Roger Federer. There was nothing amiss in his life or game that the challenge presented by Grand Slam events couldn't dispel or relegate to the deep background. There was nothing wrong with his attitude, nor any game-changing power shift threatening to deny him his place in history.

That's patience: the singular characteristic of every great champion who's ever hefted a racket.

By contrast, the most menacing emotion a player of any level has to deal with is fear, or succumbing to nerves when it most counts. Today, by the time the match rose to the plane of an epic, Federer was insulated from trepidation by his patience and experience. As he said:

"I used to get nervous when a friend would come watch me play as a kid, and then it was my parents, and then it was legends and people I really - who mean something. Today, it's okay. Today, anybody can come and watch me play. I don't get nervous anymore. Today with Pete (Sampras) it was a bit special, you know. When he walked in and I saw him for the first time, I did get more nervous, actually."

After sheepishly confessing this apparent contradiction, Federer also revealed that he took the trouble to mumble a well-disguised "hello" to his pal Sampras, in one of his moments wandering at the baseline below the Royal Box. "That's unusual," he admitted. "But I thought, I don't want to be rude, you know?"

As is often the case when great accomplishments are logged, there was a sort of tristesse after Federer secured the title. This was less evident in the winner's press conference (at times, it was downright jolly) than in the spent atmosphere hanging over all of Wimbledon. This was a sort of symbolic victory for Roddick; he fought so well, so hard, and so bravely that the quality of the match overshadowed even the majesty of Federer's achievement. Not that Federer begrudged him. He didn't need to ride out of Centre Court in his white military-style jacket, on the back of an elephant.

Federer was rather idiotically asked if he felt like he's the "happiest person," and he fielded the question with more attention than it probably deserved: "I don't know. . . I mean, I'm very happy. I don't know if I'm the happiest person in the world. I don't think so. I think there's many happy people out there. Tennis doesn't make you - it doesn't do it all. There's more to life than just tennis. But I feel great."

The obligatory question about Rafael Nadal's absence from the draw was bound to come up, and when it did, Roger said he didn't feel the situation diminished his achievement by one iota. "I don't think it should," he said. "Everybody expected (Andy) Murray to be in the finals. He wasn't there. It's not the mistake of the one who wins in the end. . . You never know how he (Rafa) would have played, but it's sad he couldn't even give it a fair chance. Tennis moves very quickly, you know."

Yesterday, it moved very quickly indeed - at about 143 and 135 mph, respectively. But the most impressive number on this historic day was a much smaller one, 15.

Good night, everyone - travel day tomorrow. See y'all on Tuesday.

No 1? Will Roger Federer become the first man to win 15 grand slam titles? Photo: REUTERS

An early impression of these championships sees a long-haired Romanian with improbable flair and a refined sense of showmanship flinging himself hither and thither, flicking the ball between his legs and handing his racket to old ladies and ball boys imploring them to have a go. His defeat to the upright, utilitarian Stan Smith in the Wimbledon final 27 years ago was the death of magic in the eyes of one young boy.

The match, Gone With The Wind set out across five epic sets, was regarded as one of, if not the best the Championships had seen; how that accolade moves around. Nastase was irresistible, not least because he didn’t have a moustache and he wasn’t Australian, a nation whose champions dominated at the dawn of the Open era; Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Tony Roche and Ken Rosewall. They spoke our language. They drank our beer. Nastase did none of these things. He brought mystery to the court.

Then in a rush came Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe followed by Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg, followed by Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Goran Ivanisevic. This is just a personal recollection. Others might volunteer great players from a deeper past; Lew Hoad, Fred Perry, Bill Tilden, Rene Lacoste.

What kind of player might be regarded greater than all the hall-of-famers above? Who is the man to head a roll-call spreading across a game that has been global 100 years? Is it fair to ask it of anyone to prove himself superior in all facets of the game? Yet this is what a player must do if he is to be regarded the best of all time. This is the claim made by many on behalf of the Swiss maestro in Sunday’s final. We are on the point of witnessing a landmark in the sport. None has 15 grand slam titles against his name. Statistically at least Roger Federer fills out the greatest criteria.

Though Federer won the Wimbledon junior championship 11 years ago, few saw in that victory the future that was to come. In the past 30 years only Pat Cash and Edberg have converted junior success into senior glory. Then three years later, while still in his teens, Federer buried the legend of Pete Sampras on Centre Court ending an unbeaten run of 31 matches. It was Federer’s maiden appearance in the house to which he would himself claim squatters rights. He lost to Tim Henman in the next round. It was 2001, the year that Henman ran into 'good’ Goran and bad weather. It was the year that Federer marked our cards.

Twenty-one consecutive grand slam semi-finals and 14 major titles are the numbers that speak for Federer today. But statistics are only part of Federer’s story. The elements that elevate him still further are aesthetic and ethical. He thrills on three fronts by winning, by doing so gracefully and with elegance and style. And the clincher; he has won on all decks.

In this the age of the two-handed backhand, the baseline slog, of biceps, of grunt and sleeveless shirts, Federer says no to all that. He eschews the dark side. He is every mother’s son, head boy in the tennis academy, a stainless charmer, modestly turned out, fair in manner and deed. And when he lets that backhand go we swoon.

His command of the tennis canon, his technical mastery, provides him with the material tools to win. The brain of a surgeon married to a gladiator’s spirit complete the kit. As 'nice’ as he appears, there is no sentiment attached to the kill. The dispatch is often brutally quick.

Afterwards he rarely speaks a bad word where a good one will do. There was little to compliment in the performance of Ivo Karlovic in the quarter-final. The lumbering Croat is serve dependent. Beyond that withering bullet there is little to his game. So Federer heaped praise on the pretty motion that aced him 23 times.

When he loses he does so without exception to the better man. To come second in a Wimbledon final classified as the best of all time, losing a title he had held for five years and his No 1 ranking with it to his greatest rival must have wrung his soul dry. Yet Federer stepped aside without fuss, extending his hand to Nadal while dying inside. Both had given every fibre. Neither deserved to lose.

Nadal took the greatest prize in tennis, but Federer gained in defeat. He showed us that losing, though painful, is not necessarily failure. How can it be if you have given all you have, left nothing in the locker. None can point the finger. Federer had met his match. He could not have done more. In circumstances such as there is, nothing for it but to acknowledge the better man and come back another day. Federer did this, and in doing so he acquired immortality.

On Sunday there is history to write. He has spent the fortnight in the shadow of Andy Murray, a willing warm-up act on Centre Court before the BBC went prime time. Murray is a great British story. Federer’s tale is greater than that. It transcends national interest. He is a global phenomenon the like of which we might never see again in tennis.

Poor Tommy Haas has spent a career with his nose against the window pain of high achievement looking on at the likes of Federer, wondering what he had to do to join him on the other side. This being his 32nd year he had considered leaving the racket at home and trying something else, modelling perhaps, or playing exotic aristos from a distant land in low level American soaps. One more go he said.

In Paris he drew Federer in the year he would break his grand-slam duck at Roland Garros. Despite a two-set lead, Haas’s fate was to become a footnote in Federer’s run to a 14th slam. Here, where Federer has won five times, where all his superhero efforts are trained on setting a unique benchmark in the game, Haas met him again.

Now it is Roddick’s get rid of this line for online turn, poor lad. There is only one who can look Federer in the eye and he is holed up beneath the Majorcan sun nursing a broken family and crumbling knees. The separation of Nadal’s parents coincided with the kind of career-threatening injury Federer has managed to avoid. Who knows when Nadal will return and for how long?

Federer’s run at the top of the game is as much an act of will as physical perseverance. His reliance on timing rather than power puts marginally less stress on his bones, but there is no let up between the ears. It takes a singular soul to dog it out on the circuit year after year, living out of suitcases, hitting balls day after day, hour after hour.

And to pull it off without a hint of controversy, never once missing a bus, or kicking the car door of a teenage girl, or abusing a police officer outside a nightclub in the small hours. Federer’s idea of rebellion is to marry the girl next door and start a family.

It would have been quite a day had Murray made it to the final. Perhaps it is better he didn’t. Let Roddick be grand slam victim No 15. Murray was that man nine months ago in New York. The experience made him a better player, but not yet good enough. For anyone born beyond Britain’s shores, this year’s tournament has always been about Federer, about the first to shoot for 15 grand slam titles, about the best there has been. Sorry Ilie.

By Pete Bodo

The events of the past month in the lives of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal remind me of really well-executed novels or films. One plot twist has been heaped on another, sometimes in really inventive ways (Robin Soderling, beat Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros? Hahahahah!), but while these sharp turnabouts are surprisingly - sometimes jaw-droppingly so - all of them can be explained and none of them strains credulity. Looking back on them, you're inclined to think, Well, that kind of does make sense. . . or, Geez, I shoulda seen that coming!

Roger Federer storming back to beat Nadal to Madrid? Why not - it was on a fast clay-court and at altitude! Rafael Nadal losing at the French Open? Hail, did you think he was going to go undefeated, for life? Robin Soderling (as opposed to David Ferrer or Fernando Gonzalez) taking out Nadal in the fourth round? Sounds crazy, but that selfsame guy got to the final despite having the toughest draw in Paris. Federer winning Roland Garros this year? What, did you think a guy who's been in the last three finals running didn't have a shot. . . And so on.

The only thing that was not really surprising, at least in hindsight, was the surgical precision with which Federer defused the stick of dynamite that is Soderling. And he accomplished that with the kind of shrewd, workmanlike, no-frills strategy and execution that underscored a reality that Federer critics forget, and forget again: Despite all that elegance and artistry, despite the cardigans, hair-care products, runway gawking and man purses, there's plenty of junkyard dog in this guy. He knows where the bone is buried and when he's hellbent on digging it up, it takes more than most people have to stop him. It apparently takes more than any tennis player has, at any rate, and that's his main area of concern.

Sp it was that before playing last Sunday's historic Roland Garros final, Federer got hold of DVD recordings of the last two matches he'd played against Soderling, one in the recent Madrid Masters and the other in last autumn's Paris Masters (wonder how he acquired them so quickly; I can't imagine Netflix has a huge stock of those early-round straight-setters).

On Saturday, Federer studied the videos, thought about what he's surmised from watching Soderling progress so far in Paris, and then he retired to join his wife for a quiet dinner enjoyed in splendid isolation. About 24 hours later, newly crowned as the champion of Roland Garros, Federer revealed what he'd learned on Saturday:

"I saw that he (Soderling) won against guys who were playing very far from (behind) the baseline. So this gave him time to organize and he used his big shots. . .I knew that there would be rallies when we played, and it was important for me to be close to him, to play hard against him, and use the advantages I have on clay. . . I had the feeling that the other opponents let him play too much. This is what I tried not to let him do."

This explanation may surprise those who rather thought that Federer had spent Saturday night nibblling on sashimi with Anna Wintour and the usual gaggle of fashion-industry courtesans, then went out and demolished a finalist desperate to keep punching above his weight. Let's face it, one of the things that makes Federer a somewhat polarizing figure, so attractive to some - but also so off-putting to others - is that he rarely allows us to get a glimpse of the junkyard dog. He leaves that territory to Nadal, and in this way the two men split the world. If you need to put labels on it, let's say it's Naturalists (Nadal's fans) versus Federer's Romantics.

I've been thinking about this aspect of Federer quite a bit, because of all the amazing things you could point out about this guy, the one that keeps striking me, over and over, as unusual to the point of almost being improbable is how utterly unconnected he seems from the way tennis has evolved in the past few years, and from its ruling conventions and stereotypes. One of the reasons Nadal is so popular with youngsters is that he unconsciously sends the message that he is very of the moment, very now - that he's some sort of evolutionary step forward, something tennis has not seen before and for which it has no answer. Nadal literally begs you to make all those arguments about how this isn't your father's game of tennis anymore, about how somehow tennis has gone to a mythical "next level" which may not exist and maybe never did - at least not in so conspicuous, quickly attained way.

By contrast, I can't lay eyes on Federer these days without thinking I'm watching some grainy, 16mm film of just the kind of guy the new millennium game has supposedly left behind - the kind of guy about whom we say, Oh, he was a great player in his time, but he'd never last with the way the game has changed today! Close your eyes, can't you hear the projector click-clacking, and see that blurry image jumping around on the window-shade like drop-down white screen?

Federer is light on his feet, blessed with remarkable feel, and he possesses stores of stamina and determination that are concealed rather than advertised. Nobody looks at him and thinks "next generation," or "specimen." Guys who play, look, and even talk like Federer aren't supposed to have a shot in this game anymore, and the fact that they do (or that he does, proving that at least in theory the possibility exists) is one of the things that makes tennis worth watching and following. The game was supposed to leave his kind behind, yet here is Federer, not only stubbornly clinging to existence, but actually outlasting and proving himself more durable than the specimens. Does he think about these things? Hardly.

After winning his semifinal over Juan Martin del Potro, Federer said: "Even though (I'm happy I won), I was sad for him, because, you know, he's a young player. You always think that there aren't that many opportunities, that many chances for younger players, you know. So I was a bit sad for him when I won."

Swaggering bad boy Jimmy Connors, upon reading that, would probably lick his chips and say, "Get me this weenie." And if that were somehow to have been possible, I know this: Jimbo would have gotten five games, max.

Both as a player and personality, Federer embodies this wonderful Italian word, sprezzatura. It's a difficult word to translate, but the Canadian philosopher Mark Kingwell wrote about it compellingly in an utterly delightful book, Catch and Release.

Fundamentally, sprezzatura is the ability to make difficult things look easy. As Kingwell wrote:

'Grace' doesn't quite capture its extension, though part of it. Not 'elegance' either, though again it is partly right. Vitality and lightness are implied, but sprezzatura is more than gaiety. It's that exhibition of relaxed competence, almost of insouciance, in amateur pursuit of one's goal. . .

It's simply astonishing to me that in this day and age in tennis, a player who so conspicuously embodies this notion of sprezzatura can be the leading player of his generation. Federer is no less an iconic figure in his sport than is NFL quarterback Brett Favre in football. Favre holds that position because he seems the archetypal football player, but Federer earns his distinction while being absolutely atypical. He frequently seems to think, act, and express sentiments nothing like those of a host of iconic tennis players whose qualities were often trumpeted as germane to their station: the bullishness of Vilas, the toughness of Ivan Lendl, the fire of a John McEnroe, the explosive power of a Pete Sampras, that subtle communication of menace that informed the glowering visage of Pancho Gonzalez, or the scary, almost rodent-like bloodlust of Jimmy Connors. But all of pale alongside the easy, it's-no-big-deal domination with which Federer rules.

When he was asked if this Roland Garros title represented 27 years of longing fulfilled, Federer almost laughed as he delivered what may be the best line of his career: "First, I never waited 27 years, because 27years ago I was just born. My parents never told me, If you don't win Roland Garros we take you to the orphanage."

And despite the dedication and discipline required by Federer's role in the game, when he was asked if walking away from the game tomorrow would find him a happy man, he said: "Yeah, it would ‑‑ I always said it doesn't matter when I retire, I'll be at peace. I can walk away from this game tomorrow, but I don't choose to because I love this game too much."

I don't choose to because I love this game too much. . .

BY DAVID WALDSTEIN

The last man that Roger Federer passed on the all-time Grand Slam list has now seen enough. After waking up at 6:00 a.m. from his home in California on Sunday to witness history, Roy Emerson had only one reasonable conclusion.

Federer had already passed him in the career grand slam list, but yesterday he joined him on another one – becoming only the sixth player to win all four major events.That puts Federer right back on track to be considered the best of all time.

“He’s right there,” Emerson said during a telephone interview Sunday, just a couple of hours after Federer had won his first French Open. “Yeah, I believe he is. Now that he’s won a major on all surfaces, you can’t really argue with it.

By defeating Robin Soderling in straight sets Sunday in Paris, Federer also recorded his 14th overall major title, tying him with Pete Sampras for the most of all time.

But not even Sampras won on the crushed red brick of Roland Garros. In fact, he never even made it to the finals there. His best performance in Paris was a semifinal, once in 1996.

“At first it was very foreign to me,” said Emerson, a regular visitor every year at the Orange Lawn Tennis Club in South Orange, “but I ended up liking it a lot.”

In 1964, when he won Wimbledon, Emerson completed the career Grand Slam and no one did it again until Andre Agassi in 1999. Federer became the sixth player ever to do it, following Fred Perry, Don Budge, Rod Laver, Emerson and Agassi.

“It means that now you can say he’s a complete player,” Emerson said. “I always thought he was before, but now no one can say he isn’t.”

Emerson, one of the most underrated players in history, is third on the all-time grand slam list with 12, a career mark Federer passed last September when he won the U.S. Open for his 13th major title. Emerson, like everyone else who has seen Federer match and then pass him, said it is an honor that the Swiss master was the one to have done it.

“I couldn’t think of anyone better to pass me,” he said. “He’s such a great player and such a gentleman, too. He’s a real ambassador for the game.”

Part of the reason people sometimes neglect Emerson for the all-time greatest list is because he played before the open era. Toward the end of that era, in the late 1960s, some great players like Laver and Ken Rosewall played professionally and weren’t allowed to compete in the four major tournaments. In 1962, before turning pro, Laver won the Grand Slam (The Australian, French, Wimbledon and U.S. championships in one calendar year), then watched from the sidelines for five years.

When tournaments finally allowed professionals to play in 1968, Laver was a runner up at the newly named French Open, and then won Wimbledon. The next year, he won the Grand Slam again. So it’s fair to say that Emerson had a distinct advantage without having to tangle with his Australian compatriot for five years, but he was still a great player – certainly good enough to be given a biography in the ATP media guide Instead, he’s left out while players like Andres Gomez, Goran Ivanisovic and Jan Kodes have their own bios. We’ll call it an oversight rather than an intentional omission.

Emerson, meanwhile, is far too gracious to make a stink about how he is seen in the history of tennis. All he cared about yesterday was getting up early enough to see Federer close the deal, and it didn’t matter that Federer did it without beating his arch-nemesis on the clay, Rafael Nadal.

Federer may have waited a long time to finally raise the weighty trophy, and may have lost four consecutive years to Nadal, including three times in the final. But at least it took arguably the best clay court player of all time to knock him out. It wasn’t like Federer was losing to Nicolas Almagro and Vince Spadea.

“Sometimes you have to have a little bit of luck along the way,” Emerson said. “That’s part of tournament play, you never know who you will be playing. He certainly got a break when Nadal lost, but he lived up to it.”

At the end of the conversation Sunday, Emerson had only one request. He and his wife Joy, who also woke up early to watch, wanted to know how they could send a message along to Federer.

“We’d like to congratulate him,” Emerson said. “He’s well on his way now, and I think he’s got to be the favorite at Wimbledon. I always thought he would pass me and then Pete at some point, and there isn’t a more deserving guy.”

That comes from someone who knows a lot of about winning – and winning graciously.

"The big moments are gonna come. You can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts. That's when you find out who you are."

That quote isn't strictly tennis related - yeah, okay, it's from Buffy - but my God, does it apply here one hundred percent, especially considering the theme of monster-slaying we've been considering as regards my man Roger Federer. The big moment came, and he fought to get there. I can't remember a tournament when he's fought harder - and of course it should be hard. This is a Grand Slam, and this is history. He made it to the moment. The moment came. And the world found out exactly who Roger Federer is.

The greatest tennis player of all time.

This cannot be disputed now. He has now won fourteen Grand Slams, putting him in equal first place with Pete Sampras - but unlike Sampras, he has won them on all four surfaces. He has made twenty consecutive semi finals. In addition to three runner up finishes at Roland Garros, one at Wimbledon and one at the Australian Open, Roger Federer owns five Wimbledon titles, five US Opens, three Australian Opens and one Roland Garros title.

It was the title they said he could never win. The gaping hole on his resume that was to put a question mark over his greatness. Three times he made the final, and three times he lost, including an absolute drubbing against Rafael Nadal last year. But not this year. Not this year.

With one monster left between him and history, Roger Federer did not falter. We did not see him waiver, not for one instant. From the moment that he won the first point I think the world knew, in their hearts, that it was time. This moment has been coming - for too long, some thought, writing off this great man. But Roger was patient, and he fought, and he got there. And when the moment came, he stood tall. He looked history in the face and seized it with both hands.

This is his time. This is his moment. And this, my friends, is history.

It is often the case, I find, that people who are not otherwise into tennis at all have a special place in their hearts for Roger Federer. As great as other players like Nadal and even Sampras and Agassi are, no one has ever captured the heart of the masses like this man. He has walked with kings and kept the common touch. He has personified every 'if' Rudyard Kipling could possibly throw at him. He is the greatest champion our sport has ever had, but, perhaps, more importantly, he has been our sport's greatest sportsman. He has personified everything that sport should be - fair and honest and beautiful.

He is the greatest of all time.

I have waited so long to say these words. I believed them already, I think, long ago - his case for greatness has been convincing for some years now - but if people doubt him now, then they are completely deluded. The moment has come, the time has arrived when we can fete our hero as we ought to - for he is our hero. He is the hero of the masses, of the people, in a way that no one else has ever been. He has been the sentimental darling of our hearts for many years now, this gentle, beautiful, brilliant man - and now we have arrived at the moment where this man has made history, where he has transcended everyone, where he has achieved total tennis immortality.

I saw him play once. I can tell my children, and their children, that I once saw the greatest tennis player of all time in the flesh - and the man who was the personification of everything that should be great in sport. He is a hero to so many, an inspiration, and I don't know if people have ever willed anyone to succeed more. But in the end, take away all the fans, everyone in the arena, everything but the tennis and the moment. Take away all that. There was Roger. There was Soderling, his opponent. And there was the moment when greatness was within his grasp.

He was tried and he was tested, and he was not found wanting. And now history has been made.

We live in the age of Roger Federer - the greatest tennis player of all time. And what an honour and a privilege it is.

This one is pretty easy: cool in the mornings, with periods of sun mixed with clouds and a 40 per cent chance of light showers. But when that thunder starts to roll in from Spain. . . Run for your lives, it's women and children first, stay out from under the trees, and if there are any men left, dial 1-800-Save-Us-From-Rafa!

That's pretty much how it's been for about the past three years, with Rafael Nadal going on perhaps the greatest run of clay-court tennis every put together by a male player. The only guy who might hold his own in that conversation would be Bjorn Borg, whose prowess on red dirt was comparable to Nadal's, but who played in an era that generally had less depth-of-competition, especially on clay. So why should things be any different this year? Well, because things change - maybe not on a predictable or annual basis, but everyone embarking on that red clay road is different from the person and player he was 12 months ago (How Zen is that?).

But seriously, let's look at some of the top clay-court contenders and evaluate their chances in the upcoming season on clay.

No. 1, Rafael Nadal: You know what I'd like to know? Whether Rafa is at that point in life when he can look at the spring clay-circuit in Europe and think: Same crap, different year. How many more danged times do I have to win Monte Carlo? It says a lot for Nadal that he's entitled to think that way, even though he's nowhere near the third stage of greatness, which is when most great players begin to experience the equivalent of metal fatigue, fall prey to ennui, or simply start looking to re-order their priorities as they exhaust their non-renewable mental resources.

This sudden appearance of a blue-chip event in Madrid on the calendar may come at a good time for Nadal, because his indecision about playing the event (the last I heard, my sources said it was "fifty-fifty" that he'd wind up in the Magic Box) introduces an unknown into a scenario ruined only by the fact that it has lacked unknowns. And Nadal is too aware and experienced a competitor not to go on Stage 2 alert when the customary order has been disrupted.

Nadal left Miami enveloped in some mystery, alluding to "personal" issues that may have prevented him from playing his best, most fully focused tennis. I didn't get the chance to write about this before, but I will now: In his quarterfinal loss to Juan Martin del Potro, Nadal seemed mostly to be going through the motions. The sure sign was that his shots lacked their customary depth; most of his groundstrokes landed closer to the service lines than the baseline. That made del Potro look awfully good, much like Andy Roddick made Roger Federer look good in that unfortunate Australian Open semifinal of 2007 (Roddick got just six games).

In Roddick's case, the issue was execution - he fed balls right into Federer's strike zone, begging for punishment that Roger was all too happy to provide..Nadal last week seemed less a victim of over-eagerness or thoughtless impetuousity than distraction. He went through the motions, waving at all those forehands and backhands like a man swatting flies while his mind was on other things. That's what happens when the ideal, total degree-of-focus is absent. You put on a game face and try to make a match of it. But even your most prodigious swing often leaves the ball six or eight feet short of its intended mark.

So Nadal goes onto the clay with unspecified distractions playing on his mind (although they may be banished by the time the first major event [Monte Carlo] rolls around) and some doubts about whether or not he ought to play Madrid, where the high-altitude may be an impediment to ideal preparation for the French Open (there's a mere one-week break between the Madrid Masters event and Roland Garros).

It may seem counter-intuitive, but these two challenges (and it's impossible to quantify the potential impact of the first one) could stimulate Nadal rather than trouble him. His rivals will find themselves thinking, I hope he's just not that into me. . . . But I don't believe Nadal is the type to fall asleep at the switch, so I look for him to have another outstanding year.

No. 2, Roger Federer: He may have been relieved that the hard-court swing is over, but it's hard to imagine how the world's second best player on clay can find a whole lot to get fired up about as the tour moves to clay. There's this little matter of Nadal. Just how many more times does Federer need to lose to Nadal before what was once a wake-up call becomes a requiem? And how does Federer turn around his growing habit of losing interest, or focus, or confidence, or determination, or (fill in the blank) as a match progresses toward crunch-time? And then there's that bad back narrative. . .

I never thought I'd find myself writing this, but the same talented rivals who once were given to thinking, Sheesh, I've got to find a way to stay with this guy before he hits the afterburners. . . can now be justified in thinking, I've just got to stay with him and keep the pressure on, because there's a chance he might crumble.

Federer fans undoubtedly will be outraged to read that. But that's exactly what any ATP guy who's prepared to man-up will be thinking. You might as well get used to it.

However. . .let's remember that one of the nice things about clay is that it gives a player a chance to feel around and find his game. On clay, both in practice and matches, you hit enough balls to get in whatever groove is available to you, and you can get into intimate contact with some of the more artful and delicate weapons at your command. Federer knows how to have a conversation with the ball. Inside every container of tennis balls sit three Mr. Wilsons, or Miss Penns, hoping they'll be extracted from the tube by Federer, thinking, Me talk pretty one day. . .

To me, this clay-court season will tell us something about how much Federer really wants to play, how much he still enjoys what Andre Agassi would describe as "the process." His big enemies will be impatience and a low tolerance for frustration, along with the temptation of skipping work on clay in order to better plot his ultimate revenge in a few months time at Wimbledon.

My feeling is that the impatience will win out.

No. 3, Novak Djokovic: The Djoker is in a situation comparable to Federer's, if that can be said of a guy who's got one Grand Slam title, a dozen short of Federer. But Djokovic also has far fewer miles on his odometer, and (presumably) greater reserves of ambition, youth and stamina. So the clay season is a great time for him to embark on a makeover of his game, which has gotten stuck in the twilight zone of incertitude. Lately, the guy simply doesn't seem to know what kind of game to play, and whether to attack or dig in and trust his considerable ability to change the direction of the ball, exchange savage groundstrokes, and cover his flanks. I don't think he needs to attack, at least not by the traditional definition (rushing the net). But he does need to be aggressive and to trust his strokes, following where they lead.

In this regard, the nature of clay-court tennis will work in his favor, even though it doesn't exactly reward the most common attack strategies. But the number of balls he'll have to hit may help him get back in touch with the bold quality missing lately from his game. He doesn't have to dive around, spearing volleys, but setting himself up get a ball that he can whale on off either wing in the mid-court will serve the same purpose - which is rekindling his sense of purpose.

With Djokovic, you always have to factor in strange physiological reactions and issues, all of which makes me unwilling to predict that his results will be unpredictable.

No. 4, Andy Murray: He's perhaps the biggest question mark of the clay-court season. According to Djokovic, Murray's ability to transition from defense to offense is as good as that of any player. He's the best counter-puncher since LLeyton Hewitt in is heyday. But if you look at Hewitt's record on clay, you'll see that exploiting those strengths may be harder on clay than any other surface. The transitions just can't be pulled off that quickly, because you know how it is on clay - there's always that extra moment for the other guy when you turn the tables on him; there's always that extra ball to hit.

On the other hand, Murray's quickness and inventive use of court space will enable him to do a lot more than react, and he's superb at mixing up pace and spin. In recent years, Nadal has been able to hit right through guys who have those talents, and Federer has been able to match them, short-angle for short-angle, drop shot for drop shot, and use other elements in his formidable arsenal to end the conversation with Mr. Wilson. But few of those guys have had the range of Murray, or a wingspan that makes it difficult to slide the ball by.

Murray's short-term problem may be motivation and enthusiasm. Given the hard-court season he's just finished, you can understand why he might want to coast a bit, biding his time as he feels around for just the right balance between dictating and exploiting his great skill as a counter-puncher. My feeling is that he'll be more dangerous as the weeks roll on, and use the warm-up tournaments as a way to seek out his best strategy for Paris.

No. 5, Juan Martin del Potro: Delpo doesn't have a single win in a Masters Series on clay; he's strictly a hard court hombre. In three years at Roland Garros, he's won exactly one match. He's got an awful lot of body to lug around in endless clay court matches. On the other hand, he obviously has a chance to pick up a bushel of ranking points if he can win a few matches here and there on clay, so I wouldn't write him off entirely. A guy with a huge serve and groundies can come up big on clay, because the slowness of the surface will enable him to get to more balls, and draw a bead on them, than he might reach on a faster hard court. He could be a pleasant surprise.

Best of the Rest: Jump all over me if you like, but remember that a young Andy Roddick (he's no. 6) leapt onto the tennis radar off of clay courts, and had a pretty nice little run in Paris the first time he played there (2001), taking down Michael Chang in five sets in the second round. Given the way he's ramped up his commitment, and the new pride he takes in his fitness, he could make an impact, especially on the Grand Slam stage, where his abilities as a competitor have the greatest value.

Gilles Simon (no. 7) has RGAS (Roland Garros Aversion Syndrome, a strange disease that afflicts players of French extraction at the French Open). Simon has won exactly one match in four outings at Roland Garros, but hey - they also play in Monaco, Rome, Madrid. . . He's definitely better suited to hard courts, but I wouldn't write him off. Fernando Verdasco (no. 8) has good clay-court credentials, his game is on the upswing, and he should be in nice comfort zone for the next few months. Nikolay Davydenko (no. 9) is still out with injury, and Gael Monfils - no. 10 and a semifinalist at Roland Garros last year - has plenty of potential, but someone needs to remind him that he's not Olivier Rochus - he's 6-4 and packs a wallop, so maybe it's time to junk the rope-a-dope and hit the gas.