The only constant, indeed, is change. Change that had been predicted in men's tennis but nevertheless change that has caught us off guard, predictability blending with confusion, the rapid rise of a new star, the bewildering decline of another.
You never know. A baseball pitcher named Joaquin Andujar offered that as his mantra, if in one mashed-together word, "Youneverknow."
|
|
| Defending champ Roger Federer enters the U.S. Open looking for his first Grand Slam of '08. (Getty Images) |
Everyone told us it was only a matter of time until Rafael Nadal ascended to the game's summit, and that he has done, winning Roland Garros, winning Wimbledon and winning the Olympic gold medal.
What no one guessed was that in a yin-and-yang balance, as Rafa went up, Roger Federer, old reliable, would go down. And hard.
So many subplots this year as the game heads to the U.S. Open at Flushing Meadows, so many mysteries without clues, so many enticing questions as the sport, back on the cover of Sports Illustrated after a Wimbledon without peer, heads to this season's Grand Slam finale.
Does Rafa become the first male since Rod Laver in 1969, 39 years ago, to win the French, Wimbledon and U.S. in succession? Does Federer, in what arguably is his most important tournament of recent memory, a redemption or a resumption, prove he still has it?
Does Serena Williams, the No. 4 women's seed, equal her confident words with her serves? Is Ana Ivanovic able to play like the No. 1 seed, which she couldn't at Wimbledon? And are Americans Andy Roddick and James Blake, both of whom have wins this year over Federer, not that they are alone, able to challenge, if not win?
Nadal is seeded No. 1, of course. He has won on clay, where he never loses. He has won on grass. He has won on hard courts. And three different times he has won against Federer, who with a birthday at the beginning of August looks like an ancient 27.
A strange, perplexing regression for Roger, not only without a victory in a Grand Slam for the first time in six years, but without a résumé of consequence. He has won only two tournaments in 2008, six fewer than 2007. He has lost to Nadal and No. 3 seed and Australian Open champion Novak Djokovic, understandable. But he has also lost to Blake and Roddick, and Ivo Karlovic, and Gilles Simon and Radek Stepanek. And Mardy Fish.
Roger began the year with mononucleosis, which left him weary. He continued it with losses to Nadal, which left him disappointed. At the start of Wimbledon, Roger, trying to persuade the media as well as maybe himself, said, "This is my time, Wimbledon, the Olympics, the U.S. Open." In his mind, perhaps, but not on the court.
Federer made the Wimbledon final a sixth straight year, but Nadal outlasted him on a day of history. At Beijing, Blake eliminated Roger in the quarterfinals, his first loss to Blake in nine matches, although Federer and Swiss countryman Stanislas Wawrinka took gold in doubles.
A year ago, Federer was virtually unbeatable, like his Nike compatriot Tiger Woods in golf. Now Federer is a conundrum and Tiger, after a second knee surgery in two months, is unable to play. You never know.
