So: an inspiring performance for the ages, or a deflating letdown?
My first reaction as Roger Federer put the finishing touches on Andy Roddick this morning was disappointment, to be honest. As awe-inspiring as all of Federer’s dipping, hooking, swooping winners were, I couldn’t help thinking that Roddick hadn’t done all he could to prevent them. For two sets, he looked like a broken man, crushed by his own expectations and embarrassed that he had ever entertained any in the first place.
I’ve seen few matches turn so quickly and completely. Federer was tentative to start, hitting a series of shanks in the swirling wind. Roddick, on the other hand, was pressing the action as everyone thought he would and having some success coming forward with his serve-forehand combination. Federer steadied himself, but he seemed content to rally and play defense. Everything changed with Roddick serving at 4-4. Federer hit a sharp backhand pass. Roddick missed a backhand approach. Then, at break point, Roddick played an aggressive point to set up a forehand volley, only to pop the ball up and watch helplessly as Federer jumped on it and passed him. Roddick had played himself into perfect position, then discovered that he didn’t own the shot he needed to win the point—that's gotta hurt. Somehow you could feel that the match was over.
Roddick may have felt it as well, because he opened the second set by getting broken and misfiring badly on a few balls. These were errors he hadn’t made all tournament. One backhand that Roddick pulled long was a throwback to the backhands he was hitting early last year, as he headed into his famous early summer slump.
After that, I got the feeling Roddick began to go through the motions. As Luke Jensen said, he never gave up, but the fire was out. The pressure he had vowed to put on Federer never materialized. Roddick simply couldn’t maintain control of a point—he looked like he was running headlong into machine-gun fire. Making matters infinitely worse was the fact that Federer was as loose and relaxed as I’ve ever seen him—that’s not something an opponent ever wants to face. He hit a reflex backhand winner off a Roddick overhead (and even apologized for it, though replays showed it was no mishit); he passed Roddick with up-the-line backhands and running crosscourt forehands; he abandoned his defensive style to casually show the world how one goes about dictating a point.
Amid all the fireworks, I thought the most important element of Federer’s performance was his return of serve. Roddick made 63 percent of his first serves but won a ridiculously low 51 percent of them. He couldn’t get any free points with his serve, and he needs those to survive against most opponents, not just Federer. The Swiss was even moving in on Roddick’s first serve and cutting off his wide one in the deuce court.
I suppose my disappointment came from the fact that once Federer had weathered the first storm, Roddick didn’t bring another one. The self-belief that he and Jimmy Connors had painstakingly rebuilt over the last six months vanished in an instant. Like I said, Roddick looked almost embarrassed that he—and the crowd—had come into this match with any hopes, let alone high ones.
Still, the tournament was another one to build on for Andy. He played a lot of good tennis. It may be hard for him to recalibrate again and take Federer off his radar for the time being. It’s just not in his nature to really, really want to be No. 2 in the world. Unfortunately, it’s the only goal around right now.
From last night’s notebook:
Pam Shriver: Wasn’t it refreshing to have her in the booth for a Sharapova match, rather than Mary Joe? We actually got to hear some commentary on the fine Maria received for getting coached by her father in the previous match.
Dick Enberg: The only flaw in the Federer masterpiece was having to hear it described in Enberg’s gushing gibberish. After saying Federer is like an “orchestra” and that he was proud to be part of the same “human race” as Federer, Enberg stated that his play was “beyond description.” Then don’t try to describe it! We can see it ourselves. OK, Enberg is an institution and he means well, but all of the ESPN announcers could take a lesson from their British counterparts—when there’s nothing to say, say nothing.
Mary Carillo: She extended Enberg’s symphony metaphor another step in the wrong direction by saying Federer was “making sounds the crowd had never heard before.” I wonder what those were, exactly?
On the other hand, I’ve begun to be swayed by Carillo’s opinion on replay challenges. She wants them to be unlimited and has clearly begun to irk her colleagues with her constant harangues about it. Early in the third set, Roddick didn’t challenge a shot of his that was called out. HawkEye showed that the ball had been in. Carillo was angered that now Roddick was going to get broken—effectively ending the match—because he didn’t want to use up a challenge that early in the set. She’s right, there’s no reason for that to happen, and there’s no reason to force the pros to be smart challengers as well as great players—let’s make challenges unlimited and let them concentrate on playing tennis.
Nicole Vaidisova: Big disappointment. She muscled the ball, went for the lines at all times, and didn’t look like she had the stomach to fight Serena.
Serena Williams: This may have been the most routine of her wins Down Under. She didn’t apply the beatdown the way she did to Jankovic, but she didn’t play her usual game of brinksmanship either. Even when she was down early, Serena looked like the more consistent player. What a run she’s had! How many of you picked her to make the final? Not me. You could say that this proves that women’s tennis has no depth, but don’t take anything away from Serena—you can’t ask a tennis player to do anything more than beat the person on the other side of the net.
Maria Sharapova: She came out hitting more crisply than she had the entire tournament. Perhaps she’s become the big-match performer we always thought she would be, and found a way to preserve her best stuff for the final weekend of the majors. If she can play this poorly and still be in position to win a Slam is not a good sign for the rest of the women. From a playing perspective, I was most impressed with her ability to finish at the net. She seems to be incapable of hitting a punch volley or any sort of overhead, but that swinging volley is lethal and pretty spectacular—is she an athlete after all?
Who’s going to win the women’s final? Damned if I know. If you want to see great tennis, look elsewhere; but you may miss the tennis equivalent of World War III. It's must-see TV, in my opinion. I’m just glad I have a mute button.