It is too late to dodge any of these, says the Spaniard.

In this vampirish tale of the two legends, Ilie Năstase, the character of ill and nasty, may have been expunged from the lonesome underworld of tennis.

Yet, in the absence, Romanian folklore of vampires lurks above. The all-black, sparsely doted with neon yellow, outfit in the Wolf’s body is ominous: He went pink to pink last month and now he is going black to black with the Vampire at the Open. 

The scene of the last battle is set under no sunlight on the asphalt, Vampire’s favorite time of day and its natural habitat. Further down, by Meadow Lake, owls are hooting, twit twoo, hoo hoo. And from outside the Ashe, honk honk of locomotives chime in. Humans and non-humans, the escapees from Queens Zoo, have thronged into the Coliseum with their usual oo-ooh a-aahs, oo-ooh a-aahs, and other celebratory screams.        

The moon stands still for a second above when the coin is tossed below. Both canine-toothed creatures look into their eyes and they are restless to pull out their weapons, growling in hunger for each other’s blood.

Let me go back in time and talk about the lead-up events, before fast-forwarding to the inevitable future.

The history between the two favors the Wolf. He has ousted the ballerina everywhere he has met, and the last bastion is no longer safe. With Rafa’s easy route of the draw, the time has arrived.

The Swiss saw this coming: "[Despite the surface] if the draw goes his way, he'll be in the finals and have a crack to the title, too. He knows how to win slams. He's won all the other ones."

The thought of facing the Wolf sends chills to the Vampire’s bones: "I think we get excited when we play each other, but I don't think we miss each other when we don't play. We've had that many matches against each other, and the matches are tough and grueling on both of us. There's a huge hype around it, which is also a bit exhausting at times."

Then, suddenly realizing he has sounded soft, the Vampire throws a corrective line, "Look, I hope I can play him at the Open."

Yet, Federer saw the signs in Nadal: "[I knew] he was going to improve also on the faster surfaces because right off the bat he beat me in Miami. He already had signs to show that he was also a capable fast-court player."

Pardon my brief diversion into the stats. Since that '04 Miami, Nadal has won nine of his 41 battles in title matches on hard court, including the '09 Australian Open, five Masters Series, and '08 Olympics. That record already makes a strong case for Nadal's hard-court pedigree.

With two Grand Slams, three Masters on clay, and return to No. 1 ranking by the widest margin against Federer, the year 2010 may have been the second best of Nadal's career, and, with that, the responsibility to not let his fans down.

But his last title on hard court came at the '09 Indian Wells, almost a year and half ago. At the beginning of this year, he reached his only final at Doha, losing to Davydenko. After going down in straight sets at the Australian Open in February, he lost to Murray again in straight sets at the Canada Masters 12 days ago.

But the lead-up results do not mean much in the Grand Slam scheme of Nadal’s: "You can be playing bad here [Canada and Cincinnati] and arrive there [New York] and start the tournament slow, [get] better and better every day, and you can finish playing your best tennis and win.”

If the Vampire and his worshippers are praying for the Wolf’s knee injuries or other physical maladies, your wish is denied for this year: "I am perfect mentally. ... Physically I'm perfect."

If you are thinking that the soft Wilson ball of the U.S. Open is harder for the Wolf to generate topspin, it has found compensation in more powerful serve. He “won the Olympics [and Beijing 500] with this ball.”

To bring Nasty into the cultural context of the rivalry, imagine the ghost of Romanian wolf entering the Spaniard. Then, you would have Rafa repeating Federer verbatim, “No. 2, No. 3—it doesn’t matter much. It’s No. 1 that matters.”

A more Năstase-like response would be: “I permanently reside in your head and you are simply afraid of playing me. I thrive on clay but how would you lose to me at the AO and Wimby?”

Nasty aside, the plan was set in motion long ago and execution shows a certain pattern: Nadal’s steady progress at the Australian Open nearly parallels his USO project, advancing a round further each year. Semifinals last two years means the final this year.

The Swiss is aware of this: "[...] he’s won the Australian Open already; he's been multiple times in the semis of the U.S. Open, so that is the stuff that he does now quite comfortably."

Nadal fans believe that the brute of nature is unbeatable in the final. I concur that even if he might not produce Kantian sublime beauty, his merciless defensive aggression and unyielding mental frame are huge pluses for reaching the U.S. Open final.

To fast-forward to the court, here is what happened on September 12, the judgment day:   

The Wolf rendered the Vampire’s chip and charge shots with swift and powerful angled passes. The Vampire’s reliable forehand was countered shot by shot, by running him from corner to corner and pinioning him behind the baseline.

With extreme investment, durability, urgency, expediency and mental fortitude, Rafa, once again, dismantled the Swiss choreography, rhythm, ballet dancing and efficiency. More appropriately, death by anaphylactic reaction or haemorrhagic shock was the sure outcome when the Babolat’s forehand ceaselessly hacked at the Wilson’s backhand.

The Wolf continued asphyxiating his arch-rival until the last few thump-thumps of the Swiss heart were audible in the suddenly pin-drop silence of the Coliseum.   

The Wolf’s nastiness is not about verbalization but thrashing the opponent mercilessly, sucking blood out, and leaving him lifeless. The last missing castle is set in place where it properly belongs, in the fathomless dungeon of the Mediterranean Wolf’s Career Slam.

The last words of pain reverberated across the sky, with the body parts floating in flames: “Aarghh,” followed by a flash of an uncanny smile, perhaps a tribute to the conquests of many unsurpassable summits. The “Aarghh” had the late modernist sound of DA, the thunder in Elliot’s Waste Land: Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata (give, sympathize, control).

An honorable burial of the dead was observed, highlighted by the placement of a “Wolf-Conquers” inscribed Babolat racket on the magnesium vault containing the Vampire’s body splinters.

With that, a new era of the sublime beauty of the brute is formally initiated. I wonder how Nasty would feel about it, who once said in the 1970s, "What is behave? Every player like this, not only me, babee. We all nervous, all temperament, all crazy."                   

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

So far, the biggest win of the tournament was Richard Gasquet's victory over Nickolay Davydenko, the sixth seed. I have Gasquet as one of two to watch for getting far in the tournament.

Kei Nishikori's victory over eleventh seed Marin Cilic is in my mind the biggest upset. I would never have picked this one. Here are others to watch for upsets, good matches, and to see how well the players are doing during the tournament.

James Blake v. Peter Polansky

In a match of old versus new, thirty-year-old Blake takes on twenty-two-year-old Polansky. Blake, who once reached fourth in the world, has been trying to rejuvenate his game. He is currently ranked 108th and unseeded. His opponent is new to the U.S. Open, but has already won some spurs advancing against Juan Monaco who was seeded thirtieth. 

Robin Soderling (5) v. Taylor Dent

As matches go, Soderling may have had the weakest opening of all the seeded players in both draws who still did not lose. This round, he meets Taylor Dent, a U.S. player who may not have as much to offer. Dent's major problem is that Soderling is not going to relax a bit until he seals a win. On the other hand, if Dent wins one of the first two sets, he could take Soderling a long way.  We will see if he can make something happen today, although as I write this, he is almost down two sets with the results seemingly already at hand for Soderling.

Jurgen Melzger (12) v. Ricardas Berankis 

The smaller twenty-year-old Berankis may trip up Melzger at a tough time. This match is ongoing as I write this article. Hurry over to see the outcome of this match, currently tied at one set apiece. With Melzger doing so well this year at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, a quick exit would be a shocker.

Maria Sharapova (14) v. Iveta Benesova

Sharapova, one of the two favored women to win the tournament, is not yet Grand Slam sharp. Benesova, a left-hander, could pose a problem for the taller and much better Sharapova. This is worth seeing to find out just how much the first match for Sharapova helped her for the upcoming matches.

The whole tournament is worth watching. These are just a few of the great tennis on display in New York today. Remember, these matches are offered live on www.usopen.org and on ESPN2 or the Tennis Channel. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Federer has the occasional habit of delaying making excuses for a loss, sometimes for months.

This, in my opinion, is done to suit his particular needs with regards to getting some sort of edge over his opponent, or bolstering his waning sense of security before the Grand Slams.

In a recent interview before day one of the US Open in Flushing Meadows, New York, Roger Federer announced he had a variety of ailments during his run at the Masters event in Toronto in early August.

Federer stated that because he had not played a match since losing at Wimbledon at the end of June, he was affected by a variety of physical issues.

"In Toronto I really had a lot of muscle pain, my arm, my wrist, my chest, my shoulder. Coming back right off the bat after six weeks and playing such tough matches early on was tough on the body," said Federer

These are, in effect, carefully planted insinuations as to why he lost to Andy Murray in the final of Toronto and are designed to get into the mind of his recent and subsequent opponents.

Federer has a history of blaming past losses to Murray on illness and injury.

At the beginning of the current season, he pinned his defeats at the hands of the Scot in 2008 on "mono" and a back ailment. This is an example of Federer's 'delayed excuse' tactic that he sometimes implements before important matches at the Slam events, and will be discussed later.

In his post-match interview after the final match, he praised Murray's new-found aggression and made only minimal excuses for his loss.

One could have deduced from these words that Federer was starting to have respect for his young rival—a player he is known to dislike simply because the talented Scot is one of the very few who has the resources to take him apart, not by brute force, but by tactical cunning.

Federer's respect, however, was short-lived, and as is so often the case before the majors, he needs to resort to explaining past defeats to strengthen what he perceives as his fading court presence, especially in the eyes of those who have dealt him heavy blows in the past.

This is a clear and disrespectful strategy to get a mental edge over his opponents.

It is sneaky behavior of the highest order, and worse than making injury claims right after a match, such as his excuses after losing to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon—in the latter case without even being specifically asked.

It will be recalled that his main rival, Rafael Nadal, had the same lay-off after Wimbledon, but made no mention of injuries after his semifinal defeat by Murray.

And the Spaniard could easily have done so to bolster his ego, and would have made a believable case for himself, considering his history of knee troubles.

After Federer lost to Novak Djokovic in the semifinals of the Australian Open in 2008, no blame was laid on any physical issues—nor should there have been. Federer dispatched both James Blake and Berdych, both solid hard court players, in straight sets.

Towards the end of that season, he stated that he was, indeed, suffering from an illness and was hampered physically in that match.

Federer was looking to either boost his fading aura and get under the skin of his rival, or take away from Djokovic's tremendous achievement. 

In 2008, Federer lost to Murray at the Masters event in Madrid, and at the group stage of the Masters Cup in Shanghai. He had some words of praise for his opponent after those losses.

At the Australian Open this year, Federer changed his mind about the Scot's past victories, blaming his losses on illness and injury.

Like his bravado before the final match with Murray in Australia, when he all but declared his indestructible prowess in the Slams, those attempts at downgrading Murray's wins were meant to rattle his still maturing rival.

Perhaps Federer should get a lesson in humility from Andy Roddick.

After his defeat at the hands of Janko Tipsarevic in the second round of this year's US Open, a major upset in the eyes of many, Roddick simply acknowledged his opponent's brilliant game.

"Tonight, I felt like the guy earned it. That's probably easier to deal with when he comes up with the goods."

The American could easily have mentioned the illness with which he was diagnosed not long ago, as a possible reason for his loss, but tactfully refrained from doing so.

Going back to the interview discussed at the beginning, Federer also mentioned that he is in good physical and mental shape. "I feel as good as I can feel prior to a Grand Slam," he said, also adding that he has "no niggling injuries, no pain anywhere."

Let's wait and see if he holds true to those words, should he lose at the Open. Of course, his opponent might be a determining factor.

We all know how he feels about Murray. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

They will have no choice but to unanimously label him as the greatest of all time.

The Legacy

Now, why does this tournament forever define the tennis god known as Roger Federer? The answer has to do with perception. 

His dominance and perceived invincibility seems to be wearing away now. Despite his convincing win last week against Mardy Fish and the rest of the Cincinnati Masters tournament field, critics are saying that the Swiss tennis player's reign of supremacy is coming to a screeching halt. 

While he currently sits just below Rafael Nadal on the tennis ladder, 2010 has seen Federer fall to No. 3 in the world for the first time since 2003. He still has the ability to win any tournament he's entered in, but eventually old age, which comes much sooner in the world of tennis, will indeed catch up with him. 

Some claim that it already has, meaning that this tournament is the perfect opportunity for Federer to put his naysayers to rest. 

Going into last year's U.S. Open, Federer had won 40-straight matches and five-straight titles. But then, in the tournament he routinely dominated, he was ousted by Juan Martin del Potro. Consequently, the questions started.

Now Federer faces a field devoid of some of the biggest names. Andy Roddick, while in the tournament field as the ninth seed, has been sick with mononucleosis. Defending champion del Potro is out with an injury. The time for Federer to grab the title back is now. 

A win would prove the doubters wrong and give him his second Grand Slam title of the year. He would be able to rub the trophy in the face of those who say he's too old and washed up.

He would be able to say he was the greatest ever. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Murray, one of the favorites to win this title based primarily on his win at the Rogers Cup in Toronto, is yet to win his first major. He’s known good results in New York, however, and this event presents one of his best chances to do so.

Here are five reasons why.

Begin Slideshow

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Serve and volley?

Ha!Ha! Ha! Serve and volley is dead!

Net play? Ha!Ha!Ha!Are you nuts?

A woman coach? Amelie Mauresmo? Ha! Ha! Ha! You must be crazy!

These are the kinds of barbs , taunts, scorn and scathing attack you would imagine that Michaël Llodra endured when he decided to seek coaching from his compatriot Mauresmo.

Changing your game plan is never easy. Remolding and remodeling it is even harder, especially late in your career. The trick lies in not changing a lot of stuff, just a few things.

Llodra works some magic

Llodra is no spring chicken. The 30-year-old has been around for eleven long years. He turned pro in 1999.

But on his day at the US Open, he left the Wimbledon finalist, Tomas Berdych frozen in his tracks.

Pete Sampras fleshed out the serve and volley approach to impel his way to fourteen Grand Slam titles.

But since then its been a massacre of this archetype at the rackets of the back court specialists. Their ability to strike the ball clean and hard from the back of the court make the adventurous think twice before embarking on the ‘serve and glide into the court’ art form Sampras patented.

But for three straight sets on Wednesday, the 1st of September, 2010, Michaël Llodra illumined that if you put on your thinking cap you can make the most powerful opponent seem positively flat-footed.

Llodra’s gambit - sticking to his strengths - paid off big time!

Berdych had no comeback to Llodra’s artistry and court craft. His inability to decode the Frenchman’s wiles had him packing his bags way too early in the tournament.

Tomas had this to say about the match: “We played three times, four times from the baseline, that’s it.I had no chance to play my tennis. That’s just well done for him.”

Llodra won sixty serve and volley points. This was out of a total of 101 points won. A remarkable sixty percent. Net approaches won = 48 of 75 = 64 percent. He was rapacious and predatory at the net.

Volleying it out

Serve and volley is an offensive ploy; slugging it out from the baseline is essentially defensive.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the aggressive quad dance provided you can execute it well.

You curve the ball into the body to cramp your foe or spit it wide so that your opponent has to stretch to get to the ball. You follow up the serve by moving into the half-court and wait for the floated ball. The return is ruthlessly dispatched to the nether regions of the court or killed at the net with a deftly executed drop shot.

It is a perfect ruse to allow you some rest and recuperation in between games. Grinding away at long rallies is more suited to the younger, fitter players; it is hard on the knees for the older guns.Besides, there’s nothing like the sheer exhilaration and joy of being able to kill off your opponent’s shot at glory from mid-court or at the net.

Shortening the points also frustrates your opponent.

The only real counter attack your opponent can effect is to try for the low percentage passing shots on either side or try to drop the ball at your feet. Lobbing is for the truly venturesome.

Closing in on the mid-court lacing reduces the angles and allows one to take the ball early. This simultaneously cuts down your adversary’s reaction time.

But it has to be executed to perfection else you could be left stranded at the net watching the green spheroid whiz past. Playing doubles is a surefire  way to improve your game on the half-court.

Sinking a titan

Llodra is a doubles specialist.And his game plan mid-court was near flawless in its execution.

It helped that the Tomas Berdych who showed up was not the Wimbledon buccaneer but his older inconsistent walking dead man shadow.

The Frenchman’s serve and volley game seeks to emulate his idol  - that elegant Swede, Stefan Edberg. Is it any wonder that he berged, submerged and bagged a Berdych? A Tomas Berdych to go , please!

Llodra may well be shown the door in the second round when he takes on Victor Hanescu but for one magical afternoon, he showed how attack is often less taxing than defense and even more ethereal.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Soderling survived a scare against little known Austrian Andreas Haider-Maurer 7-5 6-3 6-7 5-7 6-4. Berdyech, on the other hand, lost 7-5 6-4 6-4 to Llodra.

While it true that Llodra took Berdyech by surprise using his serve-and-volley tactics, but I expected at least a little fight back from a player with such great potential. I mean he has beaten Federer twice in a row (one of them coming in Wimbledon), reached the Roland Garros semifinal and the Wimbledon final.

Whether this is just minor loss or not, only time will tell if he can jump back and end his year on a high at least.

Llodra had the upper hand throughout the whole match; he certainly did not show any sign of giving up and was at full throttle throughout.

However, you expect Berdyech to go down in at least four sets or somehow show signs of a mini comeback and keep Llodra on alert.

Even after Llodra's trainer was called to treat his leg after falling awkwardly in the fourth game of the second set; nonetheless, Llodra came back even stronger to hold serve and then broke Berdyech's serve to win the second set.

What surprises me the most about players like the "Soderlings" and the "Berydechs" is that they reach their peak and defeat many top players at top events such as the Grand Slams and then when under the spotlight, they disappoint!

One example being Berydech's first round match at the U.S. Open. I find it sad for the game honestly. Although I still think they have potential for future events and who knows maybe they might add a Grand Slam or two.

Soderling had his fair share of suffering in his first round match yet came out unscathed unlike Berdyech.

I somewhat compare those two players to Del Potro, of course had he been playing, we would have seen amazing matches worth watching but that was not to be. Obviously assuming Del Potro was fit and healthy.

The one difference between Del Potro and Berdyech is that the former would have pulled of a fight back against Llodra and the latter; well, I just do not know what happened in his first round match as I am still surprised about what happened.

I still do believe that Berdyech can bounce back this year and can certainly come back with a bang.

Soderling too can improve on his first round match and he can go far this U.S. Open, that is if a big improvement is made, and who knows maybe both of them can shine in London at the ATP World Tour Finals.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

In reality, they were because Rafael Nadal survived his opening 2010 U.S. Open tennis match against unranked Teymuraz Gabashvili.

Nadal's game against Gabashvili, the 98th ranked player in the U.S. Open and 93rd ranked player in the ATP rankings, was unimaginative at best.

Afterward, Nadal made his excuses. He claimed he was taking it easy. And that the U.S. Open tennis ball was more difficult for him than those used at other Grand Slams. 

"It's the more difficult for me, especially I think because the ball," he said. "The ball is more easy to play for the players when they have the flat shots, no? That's much easier for them than for the topspin players. That's the only thing. But I won Olympics with this ball. I won in Beijing in 2005 with this ball. I can do it."

Whatever the circumstances, the shaky start was something few expected against Gabashvilli.

The highest ranking he ever has achieved is 59th. The highest he has ever gone in any Grand Slam is the fourth round this year on the clay at Roland Garros. Apart from 2006 and 2007, he has never gone past the first round at the US Open.

We have already lost eight seeds sent home in the first round, scrambling the draws considerably already even before the First Round of the Men's Draw is completed.

Of those in Roger Federer's half of the draw, four are gone. Mardy Fish (19), Novak Djokovic (3), Robin Soderling (5), and Albert Montanes (21) were all stretched to five sets.

Four are gone from the Nadal half of the draw, with Tomas Berdych (7) the highest seed out of the tournament so far. David Nalbandian (31) and Fernando Verdasco (8) were both stretched to five sets in the First Round. And Ryan Harrison, a qualifier, beat Ivan Ljubicic (15) just today.

The results from the Nadal match were not expected by many. Some writers claim he is just saving himself for the later rounds, where he has arguably lost steam due to early aggressive play.

But the reality is that Nadal has not played that well over the past few weeks, and continues to struggle.

It appears that Nadal has been warned that slow play will not be tolerated.

His game is now played at a generally faster pace.

But when the match was still very much in question, Nadal reverted to form last night.

He delayed service on several occasions, bouncing the ball incessantly. Will this be more evident in the later rounds? We will see.

In the meantime, the first match cannot give Nadal fans much hope that he will finally reach the U.S. Open Finals this year.

If anything, the excuses and unaggressive play could signal another early departure. Yet of the two halves of the draw, Nada's half is shaping up to be very weak indeed. 

If the quickly weakening draw does not save Nadal, Federer seems primed for his sixth U

U.S. Open Men's Championship without ever meeting him. And that would be a shame.

And that is The Real Truth. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

He makes no pretense of being the Great Communicator like his rival, Roger Federer.

As pundits corner him and ask him to reflect upon the game and his place in it, Nadal simply shrugs and smiles, not really sure how to gauge his place in the game currently, or the past––or speculate about his place in the future of tennis.  

Nadal only knows and cares about the next match.

It is a point that should be well-taken because you can only look at the history of an ongoing event when it is over, not while it is still evolving.

Scientists will tell you as much. You cannot determine the results of an experiment until it has run its course. Stopping midway and assessing its progress is a waste of effort.

Nadal is all about living in the moment.  He is more action hero than philosopher or to put it more concretely, more yin than yang––more Jackie Chan than Peter O’Toole.  

Life like tennis is about playing the game––not talking about it.

That is how Nadal takes to the court, too. His bent these days is aggression because he needs to win and has discovered that you only win when you move forward and play hard––not by sitting back and waiting for opponents to capitulate.  

The nobility is in playing hard, every point and leaving nothing in reserve. There is only tomorrow if you win today.  

The Majorcan has done much of that lately––winning. He is ranked No. 1 in the world, taking over that spot on June 21, 2010 after Roger Federer failed to make it to the semifinals of the French Open and lost his hold on the ranking.  

This is the second time Nadal has succeeded Federer as the No. 1 player in the world. The first time it happened was in August of 2008 after Nadal won the French Open and Wimbledon championships––just prior to the start of the 2008 U.S.Open. 

Nadal is 24 years of age and has won eight Major Finals––five French Open titles, two Wimbledon titles and one Australian Open title. But there is still a world out there to conquer, other championships to win, including the upcoming U.S. Open––the one Grand Slam Championship Nadal has never won.  

In fact the Majorcan has not even made it into the finals at Arthur Ashe in Queens.

Winning in New York would give Nadal a career slam since he would hold at least one championship at each grand slam event. It is a goal Nadal aspires to achieve and winning it would put him in rare company.

It is a difficult goal because New York offers the fastest hard courts of all the majors. It remains the surface that seems to give Nadal the most trouble.

But challenge is what spurs Nadal on and makes his life complete. He focuses on what is important to him––winning the next match and making his way through the draw as far as he can.

Still the temptations to talk about Nadal’s records and his place in the game of tennis are overwhelming for the media during interviews because, there are so many firsts and high moments to talk about:

Nadal Owned Records:

(1) French Open - Nadal won five titles in six years from 2005-2010

(2) French Open - Nadal won 31 consecutive matches from 2005-2009

(3) Nadal is the only player to reach nine different ATP Masters tournament finals.

(4) Nadal remains the only player to have lost just one game in an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 final (Monte Carlo 2010: 6–0, 6–1)

(5) Nadal is the only player to win all three clay court Masters events in the same year (2010).

(6) He is only player to win 3 consecutive Masters titles, regardless of surface.

(7) He is only player to win at least three ATP World Tour Masters 1000 in a season for 4 consecutive years.

(8) Nadal owns the leading winning percentage of .833 in ATP Masters Tournaments since 1990.

(9) Nadal has the most consecutive years winning at least ONE Masters title - 6 (2005-2010)

(10) Nadal won the Monte-Carlo - Rome double for - five years (2005,2006,2007,2009,2010)

(11) Nadal holds the longest single-surface winning streak (clay): 81 matches (11 April 2005 – 20 May 2007)

(12) Nadal is the only male player to have won French Open, Wimbledon, and Olympic gold medal in the same year (2008)

(13) Nadal won the most singles titles in a single season as a teenager: 11 (2005).

(14) Nadal won 24 consecutive matches, the longest winning streak of any teenager in the open era, in 2005

(15) Nadal holds the record for the most consecutive weeks as World Number 2: 160 weeks

Nadal’s records on clay continue to grow.  In 2010 he literally dominated the clay court season, winning all three Masters 1000 clay court tournaments plus the French Open. Nadal uses the clay court season to build his rankings points and bolster his confidence.  

Spending at least half of 2009 injured after losing in the fourth round of the French Open and trying to keep pace on the hard courts, starting with the Australian Open in 2010, Nadal sprinted onto the clay and never looked back, sweeping aside the competition like they were Tokyo and he were Godzilla.  

There was no one who could stand in his way on clay. That extended to the finals and beyond at Wimbledon––especially when Federer faded in the quarterfinals.  

But this summer, on hard courts as he began to ready himself for his campaign at the 2010 U.S. Open, Nadal has not found the winning combination on his strokes. He feels a step slow in reaching the ball which makes him a micro-second slow in hitting the ball.  

Nadal lost to Andy Murray in the semifinals at the Roger’s Cup in Montreal and then lost to Marcos Baghdatis in the quarterfinals at Cincinnati.  He had not played at all since Wimbledon, fearing injuring or exacerbating the problem with tendinitis in his knees.

The U.S. Open is now beginning for Nadal––the only slam he has not won. The Majorcan will be focused on winning in New York, just as he always concentrates on winning. That is his mission in life, to win major titles, to win any title of any tennis event he enters.

Not to talk about his place in the history of the game.  To win.  That is what Nadal is all about.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Now, if we just go a few years back to 2008 and then continue until just a few months ago, Serena was dominating the grand slams.  

She won the US Open, Wimbledon (twice), and Australian Open (twice), with a finals showing at Wimbledon, a semifinal appearance at the US Open, and quarterfinal outings at the French Open.

Flip back to 2003, and Serena had made the semifinals of the last eight slams she entered, winning six of them.  

And then, during the summer hard court season, Serena had a freak accident.  While dancing with her friends in boots, she felt a pop in her knee, and was immediately sent to a hospital.  She was forced to skip the US Open, which she would have probably won.

Now go back to the present, and the US Open is already in progress.  And Serena Williams is out.

She had been dominating the grand slams, but a freak accident involving shattered glass left Serena unable to compete.  Again, Serena was the favorite to win the tournament.

After 2003, Serena Williams went in a slump from 2004-2006.  Serena won the Australian Open, and made the final at Wimbledon, but other than that, there was not much Serena did that was quite impressive.  

In fact, Serena had such a terrible season in 2006 that she was ranked in the 80s when the 2007 Australian Open started.

Will Serena Williams go in a slump, and if she does, will she able to come back before her retirement.  

Only time will tell, but do I think Serena will falter?  No.  After all, Serena is Serena, a special human being.  Never one to give up.  Does that sound familiar?

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

There is plenty of first-rate tennis to be savored––but these are the most compelling matches that promise the tighest action.

Ana Ivanovic vs. Jie Zheng (21) Second Round

Jie Zheng of China and Ana Ivanovic of Serbia meet in the second round of the U.S. Open on Wednesday morning at 11 a.m. on Arthur Ashe Stadium. The two have met three times with Zheng winning the last two in 2008 at Beijing and at Wimbledon.  

This match should go a long way to show how far back Ivanovic has come this summer on her road back to the top of the women’s game.

Last year Zheng made it to the third round of the U.S. Open losing to Nadia Petrova. This year Zheng made it all the way to the semifinals of the 2010 Australian Open where she finally met and was defeated by Justine Henin. The lady from China proved herself to be a fierce competitor on the hard courts.  

In Montreal Zheng lost in the quarterfinals to Svetlana Kuznetsova, after defeating Elena Dementieva in the previous round.  Zheng will come into this match ready to play and Ivanovic, who has also enjoyed a good summer, should be ready to run.  

Prediction: Zheng will win this second round contest. 

Janko Tipsarevic vs. Andy Roddick (9) Second Round 

It is always fun to watch Tipsarevic play against a top seed because the top-ranked players seem to bring out the best in the Serb.

The two combatants will meet on Arthur Ashe Stadium in the second night match where Andy Roddick will find relief from the extreme heat of the day matches.

The Serb Tipsarevic has been suffering from injury of late just as Roddick has suffered with a bout of mild mononucleosis.  

They have played each other twice on the grounds of Wimbledon with Tipsarevic upsetting Roddick in second round in 2008 and Roddick dispatching the Serb in the first round in 2006.  

We all remember what a match Tipsarevic waged against Federer at the 2008 Australian Open, taking the Swiss to five long sets before Federer finally pulled it out.  

Don’t count on Roddick having an easy time putting the Serb away under the lights. This match could be quite a tussle for the American.

Prediction: Roddick will win in four.

Gisela Dulko vs. Victoria Azarenka (10) Second Round

Dulko from Argentina meets Azarenka from Belarus on the Grandstand Court at 11 a.m. They have met each other four times on clay––each winning twice.

Dulko won most recently at the 2010 French Open. 

During Monday's action, Azarenka defeated Monica Niculescu of Romania in the opening round 6-0, 5-7, 6-1.

Gisela Dulko defeated Angelique Kerber of Germany 6-3, 6-1 to win her opener.

The Argentine has not played exceptionally well on the hard courts so far in 2010.  

Azarenka seems to be on track to do well at the U.S. Open. She is healthy and seems to be ready to compete, including holding her temper. 

Prediction: Azarenka in three.

Igor Andreev vs. Gael Monfils (17) Second Round

The Russian Andreev will meet the Frenchman Monfils on the Grandstand––fourth match of the day.

Andreev came through against Horacio Zeballos of Argentina in four tightly contested sets 6-3, 4-6, 7-6, 6-3.  

Monfils barely survived his opener against Robert Kendrick of the U.S. 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4. In the blistering heat of the day, it was a survival contest.  

Monfils did not seem especially sharp, coming back from injury without many matches under his belt.  

Andreev has the capabilities to be a dangerous player.  

In their head to head, Andreev leads 3-2, winning their most recent contest at the 2008 Rogers Cup. But the Russian’s ranking has plummeted lately to 121.  

Prediction: Expect Monfils to come out on top in this one, barely.

Sybille Bammer vs. Elena Dementieva (12)

Elena Dementieva defeated Olga Govortosova of Belarus 6-1, 6-2 while Sybille Bammer of Austria defeated Zuzana Ondraskova of the Czech Republic, 7-5, 6-0 in their opening rounds on Monday.

The two players will meet on Wednesday on Court 11, during the second match of the day, following the contest between Ryan Harrison of the U.S. and Ivan Ljubicic of Croatia.

Dementieva leads in their head to head 4-1 with Bammer’s only win at the 2007 U.S. Open during the round of 32.  The Russian is trying to make her way back into the women’s top ten after suffering some setbacks due to injury.  

Prediction: Dementieva should win this one in straight sets.

Other contests to watch:

On Arthur Ashe: 

#3 Venus Williams (USA) vs. Rebecca Marino (Canada) - 3rd match of the day - Second Round - Venus should win this one without too much trouble.

#2 Kim Clijsters (Belgium) vs. Sally Peer (Australia) - First evening match - Second Round - Clijsters should have little difficulty defeating the unseeded Peer.

On Court 11:

Gilles Simon (France) vs. Donald Young (USA) - 3rd Match of the Day - First Round.  Don't miss this one––it should be barn burner!  

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

The excitement of moving down to the lower levels in Ashe Stadium at 11 p.m. to cheer on your favorite player with a few thousand of your closest friends is unmatched in the sport.

Long five-setters have often been known to go on until the wee hours of the morning, forcing those in attendance to forget that they have to be at work in the morning.

Let's take a look at the 10 best night matches in tournament history.

Begin Slideshow

The reason, according to some analysts, has to do with the fact that the courts have been slowing down for some time. Worried that huge servers would dominate those events, all surfaces were slower by 2003.

In 2002, Wimbledon altered its grass, creating a thicker, more durable turf that slows the ball down and allows it to bounce higher, rather than skid, and baseliners have ruled ever since. Jim Curley, tournament director at the U.S. Open, said organizers began slowing their own courts down in 2002, adding extra sand to the paint, and did so again before the 2003 tournament to make the court fair for baseliners and serve-and-volleyers alike.

If you watch the US Open this year, pay special attention to whether the court takes spin more easily. If you think it does, you are not alone. It looks like the "fastest" surface in the Grand Slams has gotten slower this year. And, if so, look for better results by those players who are more at the baseline, and those who hit their strokes with the most wicked spin.

"We're trying to come up with a fair field of play for the integrity of the competition," said Mr. Curley. He said Mr. Roddick complained to him once that the courts had become too slow.

Are the courts even slower today? Have they been slowed even more this year, in a second slow down effort?

Some say the clay at Roland Garros, site of the French Open, was sped up which allegedly allowed more players to succeed on the surface and in the tournament. Fans of Rafael Nadal contend that this difference occurred in 2009. The evidence is that this has been occurring for some time, not just in 2009.

At the same time, the differences between the grass, clay, and hard courts featured at the main Grand Slam tournaments have narrowed. At Wimbledon, which has been played on grass since its inception in 1877, the organizers tweaked the composition of the grass in 2001 to make it more durable. As a result, the notoriously quick surface became much slower. Wimbledon is no longer a serve and volleyer’s paradise—Rafael Nadal won there last year by slugging it out from the baseline. Meanwhile, the clay courts at the French Open, historically the slowest surface, have actually gotten faster in recent years.

But while the US Open slowed its courts measurably in 2002 and 2003, this year's tournament has begun to show signs that the paint got another tweak this year, adding even more sand to make the courts even slower and more susceptible to spin. The best evidence came on the first day when Robin Soderling struggled to win against unranked Andreas Haider-Maurer. While Soderling was arguably not at his best and Haider-Maurer was clearly playing very good tennis, the ball seemed slower and more prone to spin. 

Of course, baseliner Lleyton Hewitt lost, so does a close win or loss prove anything about the court? Probably not.

Yet, because of the signs in statements and on the court, this should be the year for Nadal if there ever was one. Although plenty of competition waits for Nadal, the results so far suggest that baseline play could be even more prevalent at this year's US Open. Federer, however, is trying to play more aggressively based on coaching from his newly hired coach Paul Annacone.

So are the US Open courts slower this year? It is hard to know. There is no information released by the US Open on the amount of silica used in the paint for the top layer of DecoTurf, the surface used by the US Open since 1978. So we may not be able to tell from any official word during the tournament.

Federer for one claims that the surfaces are continuing to slow. 

"And as all the courts kind of slow down—indoors, hard courts, even grass— it's logical that today, if you're at the top, you can win on any surface. That's what he's been able to do. (He) still maybe struggles a little bit on the faster hard courts. But, then again, he won the Australian Open already, he's been multiple times in the semis of the US Open, so that is stuff that he does now quite comfortably."

Is this Nadal's year? It is impossible to tell.

That is why the 2010 US Open will prove one of the greatest in memory. And that is The Real Truth.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Most people across the tennis world are hoping for the one final in which Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer have not stared one another across the net.  The problem is that the path to get that final is full of land mines for each player.

These days most player's games are built for hard courts.  There are plenty of talented veterans and rising young stars who have the game and overall firepower to have a chance to keep Federer and Nadal from the meeting we would all like to witness.

So I'm going to list the top ten players who I think could stand in the way of each player.

The field against Nadal:

David Nalbandian - David Nalbandian has been on a roll as of late.  After spending most of the last eighteen months recovering from hip surgery, Nalbandian has finally started to show the form he had prior to his injury.

Nalbandian has turned out to be an almost impossible opponent for Nadal over the years.  Prior to his win in Miami last year, Nadal had never once defeated Nalbandian.  Even though he has won the last two meetings, an in-form Nalbandian is still a big threat to Nadal getting to U.S. Open final.

Andy Murray - While Nadal owns an 8-4 record against Murray, Murray pretty much owns Nadal on hard courts.  The surface suits Murray's game much better than Nadal's.  On this surface, Murray is more comfortable playing aggressive tennis, and often has Nadal on the ropes only a few strokes into a rally.

Murray is the biggest potential obstacle Nadal has in getting to the final.  The question is whether Nadal will have enough left in the tank to take down Murray in a possible semi-final match.  Only time will tell.

Fernando Verdasco - It ranks certainly as one of the very best matches of the past decade.  I'm talking of course about the Nadal/Verdasco slug fest that occurred in the semi-finals of the Australian Open in 2009.  

It was the first time that Fernando Verdasco ever took it to Nadal.  Until then Nadal owned Verdasco thoroughly, and although Nadal won the match en route to the title, Verdasco showed that when confident, he has the goods to beat anyone.

Nadal however has never lost to Verdasco, and I think he is a better player now.  But nobody ever thought Verdasco would do what he did that night.  Who knows what would happen if he had the chance to do it all over again this year.

Nicholas Almalgro - In the last year or so we have begun to see a change in Almalgro.  He's always been talented.  He's always had blistering ground strokes, but he could never put everything together, and often found himself fading in the third for fourth set.

These days Almalgro is starting to show his potential.  He pushed Nadal a couple of times this year, most recently at the french open.  Almalgro's game is best on hard courts and it might be here where everything comes together.

Thomas Berdych - Early on in their respective careers Berdych was the top dog in his battle with Nadal.  He won the first three matches, but since has been outclassed by the Spaniard, most recently in the Wimbledon final.

But even though he lost their most recent duel, this year has been a coming-out party for Berdych.  He's beat Roger Federer a couple of times this year with Wimbledon being his signature victory.  When Berdych is on he is hard to beat.  To beat Nadal he will have to be at his best, but it is possible.

Sam Querrey - Querrey has been making a steady climb up the rankings over the last couple of years, and has show flashes of what he might become in the future.  Like most  young players though, he can be inconsistent, but like Berdych, Querrey's game is best on hard courts and it's here that his chances against Nadal are best.

Ernest Gulbis - Gulbis has been a frustrating player.  At times his game looks simply unbeatable, and other times it falls apart with ease.  Gulbis beat Federer in Rome this year and gave Nadal almost more than he could handle on his beloved clay which begs the question; what if his game were at it's peak on the hard stuff?  If so, he could probably beat anyone including Nadal.

David Ferrer - Ferrer's game is best suited on clay like Nadal's but he is quick and has the ability to win here or at least make a decent run.  Against Nadall he would have to play the match of his life, but his tenacity and hard work are unmatched.

Phillip Kohlschreiber - Kohlschreiber is always a tough nut to crack for Nadal.  While he's always been on the winning end of their battles, they have been tough affairs.  Nadal has often been pushed very hard in order to win and nothing so far from Kohlschreiber indicates that his game will fall off.  Against Nadal he will do everything in his power to win and he believes he can win.

Alexandr Dolgopolov - The first time I saw Dolgopolov was in Rome this year against Nadal.  He pushed Nadal much harder than I would have imagined.  His serve is among the best I have seen in some time, and his forehand is quite wonderful.  He's climbed up the rankings very quickly and seems poised to soon join the top twenty.  Although his prowess on hard courts is not great, his game has developed as quickly as his ranking which might bode well.

Against Nadal he would probably lose, however I never thought he would give Nadal a run for his money in Rome, and it's possible he could do so again.

The field against Federer:

Juergen Melzer - For Melzer this year has been something of a renaissance and career revelation combined.  During the clay season Melzer's game suddenly came alive.  He's always been a shot maker, but he's also always been wildly inconsistent.  Now the errors and mental and physical have dropped and his results speak for themselves.

Robin Soderling - Soderling was once like Berdych.  His game was always dangerous but his mental game was not.  He would often lose matches late because of either pressure or simply mental fatigue.

The last eighteen months have been big for Soderling.  He's beaten Nadal and Federer at Roland Garros, and his career high ranking of number five in the world has not been about luck but skill and good results. 

Can he defeat Federer?  Certainly.  His game on hard courts is impressive and Federer will need to be firing on all cylinders to beat him.

Novak Djokovic - Among all of his possible opponents Djokovic is probably the most dangerous.  His game is excellent.  If he wants to defeat Federer however like he did in Australia a few years ago, he will have to to place exceptionally well.

Djokovic has managed to be on the winning end of a fair few battles against Federer, but here the stakes are higher and Federer will not go quietly.

Mardy Fish - Of anyone this summer Fish has been the best.  After shedding over twenty pounds, his game and stamina have been surprising and he pushed Federer hard in the Cincinnati final. 

Marcos Bhagdatis - Bhagdatis is a bit of an enigma.  Three to four years ago he was one of the biggest and brightest of the young stars in the game before lack of motivation and his love of food proved to be the harbinger of doom to his career.

Andy Roddick - Andy Roddick has rarely been on the winning end of his matches with Federer over their respective careers.  No victory by Federer or loss by Roddick has been harder than their epic Wimbledon duel last year. 

Roddick does not possess the natural skills necessary to defeat Roger, and yet their epic duel showed that Roddick can win if he plays his very best game.  On hard courts however it would be much more difficult.

Gael Monfils - Monfils has been bursting with potential for the better part of four years now and has yet to cash in on any of it.  Though he is dynamic in game, his body is a fragile as glass.  He is often out for at least a third of the season with injuries. 

Given ample confidence and full health however, he has the ability to give anyone, even Federer a tough match.

Nikolay Davydenko - If this was the Nikolay Davydenko from the end of last year, he might be a favorite for the title, but due to injury earlier this year he has not been in form.  He has shown improvement recently but is far from his best.  He might be able to make a tough match for Federer, or even a win.  It would however be a surprise.

Leyton Hewitt - Hewitt is getting older.  There is no way to get around it.  But before his career is done, he would like to make at least one more run for a title.  His chances are waning and while his game is not as dangerous as it once was, he is still tenacious and much like Nadal, his drive is unmatched.

He beat Federer in Halle earlier in the summer.  The U.S. Open is different, but it might be just the time to make his run.

Fernando Gonzalez - I remember when Gonzalez defeated Federer twice in a row a few years ago.  It was surprising, and  yet it showed that he had the firepower to beat him.  Since, he has had little success but his forehand is among the best in the game.

He has been suffering from an injury recently so his overall health and form may not be conducive to a victory over Federer.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Tennis is one of those rare experiences that can offer that one-on-one contest of physicality, skill, strategy, and endurance—all without the combatants having to get punched in the face. Watch closely enough during this year’s US Open and eventually a match, probably in the men’s draw, will eventually be described using a boxing analogy.

But not all bouts live up to expectations, in the sense that they are not closely fought affairs that teach us about human will. Sometimes one player unexpectedly reaches a plateau where he can’t be touched, and the contest’s outcome is not in doubt.

It’s not dramatic, but it’s still breathtaking.

Drama was what tennis fans wanted to see in the quarterfinal match between Pete Sampras and Andy Roddick in the quarters of the 2002 Open. Residual memory from the previous year’s event, particularly its quarterfinal rounds, was still strong: Sampras and Andre Agassi had played the most commemorated match of their career, a four-set clash of styles that ended in four tiebreaks, neither player having his serve broken. Roddick had taken on fellow young gun Lleyton Hewitt, the eventual champion, on the next night and fallen in a tight five-setter.

A year later, the Roddick-Sampras matchup bore the billing of two American heavyweight servers fighting for survival and the added selling point of the generational divide: Sampras, age 31, looking for one last slice of Grand Slam glory, while 20-year-old Roddick was seeking to grab his first and live up to his billing as America’s tennis future.

It’s hard to blame anyone who picked Roddick to win that night. He had a far less impressive curriculum vitae than his opponent, but carried a 2-0 record against The Pistol into that encounter and was having a much better season.

Then again, Sampras had fallen to No. 17, so quite a few players were. Sampras’ last major title, his last title of any kind, in fact, had come more than two years earlier at the 2000 Wimbledon, where he beat Patrick Rafter to win his 13th Slam and break Roy Emerson’s record. It was a joyous event, followed not long thereafter by his marriage to Bridgett Wilson and firmly established position in the game’s history books.

After that historic performance, though, the burden of his nearly 30 years and more than a decade of pro play seemed to weigh on his legs. When coupled with his hereditary thalassemia minor—a condition that regularly results in anemia—this led to a sudden downswing in his results. Furthurmore, the game at large was changing: New players emerged and, over the next two years, foisted a series of indignities on the aging champion.

Marat Safin effortlessly deflected his serve at the 2000 US Open finals. Gustavo Kuerten outlasted him at that fall’s World Tour Finals. Roger Federer’s passing shots finally punched one too many holes in his net coverage in the 2001 Wimbledon.  

Most embarrassing of these brushes with greatness-in-the-making was the 2001 US Open final: Sampras had again beaten Rafter in four sets, won that crowd-pleaser with Agassi, and then avenged his loss to Safin from the previous year. His reward would be a final round encounter with Hewitt, a player whose returns, speed, and passing shots were the stuff of nightmares for serve and volley players even on the best of days; just see his winning records against not only Sampras, but also Rafter and (overwhelmingly) against Tim Henman.

We’ll never know how Sampras might have done had he played Hewitt fresh that day, but less than 24 hours removed from beating Safin he had only one good set in him, falling 7-6 in the first before Hewitt picked him apart 6-1, 6-1.

That heralded the coming of the worst season of Sampras’ career since the start of the 1990s. He didn’t reach a final in 2002 until Roddick beat him on the clay of Houston. After that, he won just one more clay court match, losing in round one of Roland Garros to little known Andrea Gaudenzi. So palpable was his disappointment that Gaudenzi, who would win $3 million in total career prize money to Sampras’ $43 million, actually felt obliged to console the struggling legend with a conciliatory pat on the shoulder after their handshake.

But the lowest moment of all would have to have been the Wimbledon that followed, when the seven-time champion of the All-England Club won just one round before being sent home by George Bastl of Switzerland. The sight of Sampras, sitting in the chair and staring at the grass beneath his feet after the match was probably on the mind of Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim, who during his midterm grades for the event summarized Sampras’ performance thusly: “This isn't fun for anyone to watch.”

But rather than retire, as many suggested, Sampras was prompted by that final low to adjust: He picked up the phone and rang Paul Annacone.

It was in 2001 that the Pistol had parted with the coach who had shepherded him through the hardest ordeal of his adulthood, the death of previous coach and mentor Tim Gullikson. Annacone’s coaching then helped him complete the breaking of Emmo’s record even as his dominance subsided. Sampras had tried a variety of things after their split, including hiring Jim Courier’s former coach José Higueras to help him gain a firmer hold on clay, but change had done him little good.

In an ever-evolving game, The Pistol most needed a bit of familiarity.

So he and Annacone worked together through the summer, with Sampras stopping his losing skid in Canada and Cincinnati, but accomplishing little more. His last match going into the Open was a three-set loss to Paul Henri-Mathieu in the first round of Long Island.

The lights of New York had much the same rejuvenating effect that they’d shown in the previous year, as he won his first two matches easily. In the third round, though, the huge lefty serve and extensive wingspan of Greg Rusedski frustrated him for five sets, with Sampras seemingly misplacing his forehand return of serve until the very last game.

There he broke Rusedski to end the match, but it was not Sampras’ determination and perseverance that lingered in the Brit’s mind afterwards: It was his legs. ''I'd be surprised if he wins his next match,'' said Rusedski. He proceeded to call Sampras "a step slow" and added, ''He's just not the same player from the past.''

In his very next match Sampras would face Tommy Haas, the world’s No. 3 player, who had beaten The Pistol in their three preceding matches, and looked able to fulfill Rusedski’s prophecy. Yet, Sampras won that match in four sets, having never been broken, and set up his encounter with Roddick.

This looked to be a study of experience vs youthful energy and of whether Sampras—schooled in the style the great Australians like Laver and Rosewall—was a match for the monster hitting of the young generation even on a good day.

Early in the match, announcer Ted Robinson wondered aloud how Sampras was going to cope with the Roddick serve, which he said might be even better than The Pistol’s.

“Well,” said John McEnroe, sitting in the booth beside him, “it’s harder. I don’t think he places it as well.”

When Roddick served in the second game of the match and missed on a first delivery, the big difference between the two became obvious: Sampras stepped into the court, carved Roddick’s 100+ mph second serve back and rushed the net. The younger American, for whom passing shots were never a specialty, couldn’t get the pass by his elder compatriot.

When he was the game’s dominant force in the mid-‘90s, Sampras had not been its best pure volleyer; that designation belonged first to Stefan Edberg and then to Rafter, both of whom moved to the net and into volleying position more smoothly than The Pistol and, lacking his forehand weapon, never suffered from confusion as to whether they should stay back of not.

But under Annacone, Sampras had continually worked to improve his net coverage and, as his speed and backcourt consistency declined, began going to net behind almost every serve. At times, particularly against Safin and Hewitt, this strategy simply had not worked.

But against Roddick, who slugged and pounded away from the backcourt only to see Sampras absorb the pace of his groundstrokes and transform them into acutely angled drop volleys, geometry and gravity were on his side. He won the match’s first seven points and broke Roddick straight away.

The constant changing in Sampras’ service placement and spins also more than compensated for Roddick’s pace advantage, as he was not broken once that night. By the second set, about the third time Roddick’s serve had been punctured, the great Boris Becker was interviewed at courtside. Having been on the receiving end of a few spectacular serving displays from The Pistol in the ‘90s, Becker was asked what advice he’d have for Roddick.

“Get the hell out of the stadium,” Boom-Boom replied.

This prizefight wasn’t Ali-Frazier. It wasn’t even Ali-Foreman; more like Ali-Liston II. Sampras finished him 6-3, 6-2, 6-4, losing only six serving points in the final set.

The win made him 20-0 in night matches in New York. "You guys say Pete is washed up. I never said it,'' Roddick told the press after the match.

At courtside, Michael Barkann of the USA network asked Sampras if the remarks by Rusedski had provided more motivation.

“Who?” Sampras replied.

In the semis, Sampras drew Sjeng Schalken of the Netherlands, whose stiff-as-a-stop-sign serve and flowing groundstrokes took the great American about two sets to figure out. Once he had captured them in tiebreaks, however, he overpowered Schalken in the third. On the other side of the draw Hewitt, who had denied Sampras his last real shot at Grand Slam success, was actually helping to enable this one; he and Agassi, the only player even older than Sampras in the top 10, had an energy-burning four-set semi.

Agassi eventually knocked the legs out from underneath Hewitt, but for the first time in three years Sampras would enter the USO final as the younger and fresher player.

As a bonus, he’d get one more bout with Agassi, but this would not be a repeat of their high-quality encounter of the previous year. Instead, it would be drama of a different kind as two aging champions fought their own frailties as much as each other.

Sampras’ flat running forehand helped him run out to a set and two-break lead over Agassi, whose legs were still recovery from his semi. Then age started to catch up with Sampras as he lost one break before closing out the second set, then surrendered the third 7-5. In the fourth, the familiar signs of Sampras anemia were evident as he slumped over between serves, bounced the ball slowly and more deliberately, and fought to summon serving pace.

Agassi had successfully hit through the effects of the Hewitt match and was now clearly looking ready to go five with his compatriot, who had never been known for his fitness. So as the set neared its end, Sampras hit out on returns, hoping four of them would hit lines in the same game, and finally succeeding at 4-all. He broke, and the story of how his career would end was all but written.

When his first volley at 40-15 moved Agassi slightly out of position, a sharply angled winning volley was the only reasonable thing to expect. It was his 14th major and fifth US Open, tying him with Jimmy Connors and (later) Federer for the most. It would also be his last match on the ATP Tour.

He had not won it for his place in history. He had not won it to set records or to add to his wealth.

He had won it because he was a tennis champion. Tennis players play tennis matches for a living; tennis champions win them.

He also did it to prove a point: Tennis champions should never be discounted completely.

Epilogue: At the 2003 Wimbledon Rusedski, his ranking having slipped to No. 51 following injury, had a disappointing encounter of his own with Roddick. Rusedski lost in straight sets but not before the most infamous meltdown of his career (you know, the one where he repeatedly shouted “Well done, well done!” at the umpire).

In his post-match press conference he was penitent and congratulated Roddick for his win, saying that the young American had a good chance of reaching the semis against fellow rising youth Federer.

Rusedski then quickly added, “But I shouldn’t make predictions anymore.”

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

WOMEN'S SINGLES - FIRST ROUND

3-Venus Williams (U.S.) beat Roberta Vinci (Italy) 6-4 6-1
9-Flavia Pennetta (Italy) beat Irina Falconi (U.S.) 6-2 6-1
Ana Ivanovic (Serbia) beat Ekaterina Makarova (Russia) 6-3 6-2
Vania King (U.S.) beat Christina McHale (U.S.) 6-3 0-6 6-1
21-Zheng Jie (China) beat Timea Bacsinszky (Switzerland) 7-6(0) 7-6(1)
Pauline Parmentier (France) beat Alberta Brianti (Italy) 4-6 6-3 7-5
Rebecca Marino (Canada) beat Ksenia Pervak (Russia) 6-4 4-6 7-5
10-Victoria Azarenka (Belarus) beat Monica Niculescu (Romania) 6-0 5-7 6-1
5-Samantha Stosur (Australia) beat Elena Vesnina (Russia) 3-6 7-6(2) 6-1
13-Marion Bartoli (France) beat Edina Gallovits (Romania) 6-3 6-2
Virginie Razzano (France) beat Klara Zakopalova (Czech Republic) 6-3 6-2
32-Tsvetana Pironkova (Bulgaria) beat Renata Voracova (Czech Republic) 6-3 6-4
Sybille Bammer (Austria) beat Zuzana Ondraskova (Czech Republic) 7-5 6-0
 24-Daniela Hantuchova (Slovakia) beat Dinara Safina (Russia) 6-3 6-4
 Agnes Szavay (Hungary) beat Sandra Zahlavova (Czech Republic) 6-0 6-2
 Sania Mirza (India) beat Michelle Larcher de Brito (Portugal) 6-3 6-2
 Anastasia Rodionova (Australia) beat Bojana Jovanovski (Serbia) 7-5 6-4
 27-Petra Kvitova (Czech Republic) beat Lucie Hradecka (Czech Republic) 6-4 7-5
16-Shahar Peer (Israel) beat Jelena Kostanic Tosic (Croatia) 6-4 7-5
Sally Peers (Australia) beat Aleksandra Wozniak (Canada) 6-0 6-1
2-Kim Clijsters (Belgium) beat Greta Arn (Hungary) 6-0 7-5
Gisela Dulko (Argentina) beat Angelique Kerber (Germany) 6-3 6-1
Mandy Minella (Luxembourg) beat Polona Hercog (Slovenia) 6-4 7-5
20-Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (Russia) beat Kristina Barrois (Germany) 6-4 6-1
Sara Errani (Italy) beat Tathiana Garbin (Italy) 7-6(4) 7-5
29-Alona Bondarenko (Ukraine) beat Vera Dushevina (Russia) 6-0 5-7 6-4
Maria Elena Camerin (Italy) beat Sophie Ferguson (Australia) 6-4 6-0
28-Alisa Kleybanova (Russia) beat Johanna Larsson (Sweden) 7-6(4) 6-2
12-Elena Dementieva (Russia) beat Olga Govortsova (Belarus) 6-1 6-2
Elena Baltacha (Britain) beat Petra Martic (Croatia) 6-2 6-2
Melanie Oudin (U.S.) beat Olga Savchuk (Ukraine) 6-3 6-0 
6-Francesca Schiavone (Italy) beat Ayumi Morita (Japan) 6-1 6-0

MAJOR UPSET : DINARA SAFINA (RUS) AS THE FORMER WORLD NUMBER ONE

SECOND ROUND
6-Francesca Schiavone (Italy) - Maria Elena Camerin (Italy)
Melanie Oudin (U.S.) - 29-Alona Bondarenko (Ukraine) 
20-Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (Russia) - Sania Mirza (India) - GOOD MATCH
Gisela Dulko (Argentina)  - 10-Victoria Azarenka (Belarus) - GOOD MATCH
16-Shahar Peer (Israel) - Pauline Parmentier (France) 
Agnes Szavay (Hungary) - 9-Flavia Pennetta (Italy) - GOOD MATCH
32-Tsvetana Pironkova (Bulgaria) - Mandy Minella (Luxembourg)
Rebecca Marino (Canada) - 3-Venus Williams (U.S.) 
5-Samantha Stosur (Australia) - Anastasia Rodionova (Australia) 
Sara Errani (Italy) - 28-Alisa Kleybanova (Russia) 
24-Daniela Hantuchova (Slovakia) - Vania King (U.S.)
Sybille Bammer (Austria) - 12-Elena Dementieva (Russia) 
13-Marion Bartoli (France) - Virginie Razzano (France) - GOOD MATCH
Ana Ivanovic (Serbia) - 21-Zheng Jie (China) - GOOD MATCH
27-Petra Kvitova (Czech Republic) - Elena Baltacha (Britain)
Sally Peers (Australia) -  2-Kim Clijsters (Belgium) - EASY MATCH FOR CLIJSTERS



 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

The same fit would erupt routinely for seven months this year: Federer would produce his best tennis for a set and half before suddenly plunging into a neuronal malfunction. Finally, at the Rogers Cup, he found immunity against the infection and thwarted Tomas Berdych and Djokovic's late surge.
  
Since breaking into the Top 10 in 2002, Federer's seven month title drought this year has been his longest. He finally broke that drought in Cincinnati. Even if it can be argued that his path to the title entailed an asterisk of one mid-match retirement, a withdrawal, and the absence of a top five player, the win certainly has restored confidence in the Swiss to reiterate his goal of engraving the mark of twenty Slams.

Most pundits may still laugh at the seemingly unachievable goal, but their laughter will only embolden Federer to prove them wrong. In short, he has created a strong reason not to let slip this year's US Open title and further work toward the self-assigned goal.

Federer shines both on the fast surface and in the spot-light. No place is better for Federer than New York, the center of the media universe, which has been his safest fortress. Nadal has yet to come close to penetrating Federer's dominance in New York. He might not prefer other locales, but in New York I think Federer would like the challenge of playing Nadal in the US Open final.

Perhaps, the message is simply just this, "I hope I can play him [Rafa] at the Open."  

The Swiss still possesses the hard-won mental advantage over his peers, even if the aura of absolute invincibility has vanished since the end of 2007. To a certain extent, the invincibility factor still works at the Slam level, especially with players other than Rafa. But he still has to play the mental game both in the media and in private, as to use it as an extra weapon. If you can recall what Federer said of Murray right before '09 AO final, you know his mental game still works.


Could it be that Federer is trying to find a cure for the Nadal syndrome by getting inside the Spaniard's head, instead? This conjecture would sound far fetched, by most stretch of imagination, but it would not be known until attempted. One may wonder if the Swiss is expanding on Bill Tilden's mental approach to the game, who once said: "The primary object in match tennis is to break up the other man's game."

Breaking up the opponent's game may include going after his strength, as has been done on a few occasions when Nadal's forehand is targeted, instead of his weaker backhand. Nadal is known as the epitome of mental fortitude, but can he remain unaffected when his "struggle" is picked on, however gentlemanly it is done by the Swiss?

While Flushing Meadows has clanged off its first bell today, the silence of the Mediterranean Sea must be sending a dreary menace to the fortified Castle of Federer. Wait until the Majorcan renders apart the iron hinges of "struggles," and wait until you hear the whisper from Münchenstein Castle of Federer, "Oh whither shall I fly!"

(For Nadal's response, check out my next piece, scheduled to be released tomorrow evening).

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Like the men, the women competed on a grass court until 1974, when it was temporarily played on clay until 1978. Then DecoTurf made its appearance.

Other changes began in 1915 when the tournament changed its location to Forest Hills, New York. Today it is played in Flushing Meadows in Queens, New York.

One of the earliest players of women’s tennis holds the most wins with eight in the Early Era—the Norwegian Molla Bjurstedt Mallory.

1968 saw the beginnings of the Open Era. Here Christ Evert, America’s Darling, holds the most wins with six.

Begin Slideshow

With Federer making few excuses at the moment, mononucleosis gone, and no known physical injuries, he is the bookies' favorite, with Nadal just behind.  Will Federer win a record sixth US Men's Open title this year?

Hard courts at times punish the way Nadal plays. Yet, he continues to amaze many with his ability to advance on surfaces other than clay. Is this his turn for a win at the US Open?

If someone else, will it be one of the big players such as 6'3" (1.90m) Andy Murray, or one of the smaller players such as 5'11" (1.80m) Lleyton Hewitt on tour? Will court coverage trump power? Can anyone win who is not at least 6'0" (1.83m) feet tall?

With so many possible seeded winners in the Men's Draw of the US Open, perhaps one of the most talented in history, it seems completely foolish to contemplate an unseeded player winning the Men's Final. The last and only unseeded winner in the Open age to win was Andre Agassi. And his win came in the middle of his comeback.

Are there any such players today? Perhaps a few. This reviews two of them.

Yet, in any tennis age, a new dawn occurs when the old are replaced by the new. So it may be this week as the US Open begins and we look carefully at players who are also making comebacks and are emerging as new stars in an incredibly talented group of players already recognized as potential challengers for this year's US Open Men's Title.

The one uncertainty for the surface of the US Open is the amount of sand used in the paint. The more sand, the more spin and the less speed. Apparently, the US Open does not announce the precise amount of sand being used for its painted surfaces. Thus, it is possible that the surface will be slower and more oriented to spin.

Sergiy Stakhovsky

Winner of the Pilot Pen Men's Championship and coming into the US Open on the upswing, Stakhovsky is likely the highest ranked unseeded player. At 6'4" and very thin, one wonders what his stamina will be like in the second week.  Should he reach that level, he would have to beat Nadal and Verdasco to advance to the semifinals. 

There was far less competition at the Pilot Pen than there will be at the US Open. Also, when looking at his results against ranked players, his annihilation at the hands of Andy Roddick in March does not bode well for Stakhovsky.

Yet, for all this, given the draw, Stakhovsky could benefit from the rest of the draw in what some claim is the weakest draw in the tournament. The most likely of the unseeded players may be Stakhovsky.

Richard Gasquet

Gasquet is said by some to be the favored unseeded player in the tournament. Unlike Stakhovsky, his success on hard courts is limited. Also, he lost to Stakhovsky in the Rogers Masters. He may not be the second most likely winner, but his past history indicates that he has a chance. His win over Mikhail Youzhny, seeded 12th in the US Open, makes it more likely that he could advance further this time than ever before.

Dark Horses

As I write this column, the game between Robin Soderling and Andreas Haider-Maurer is in the third set. One is reminded, with the match tied 5-5, that some dark horse winner could advance very far if he wins the first match that he plays. Will it be Haider-Maurer? We will see.

And that is The Real Truth.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com