Dominance

As we say goodnight to another Australian Open, we find there was an utterly predictable finale on the men's side, and an utterly unpredictable one on the women's side. Yet both were tales of dominance, complete mastery. Roger Federer has this kind of mastery at his fingertips every minute of every day, and Serena Williams surprised us by summoning it after a long period of inactivity.

Federer poses an interesting problem to the sportswriter these days - what is left to say? Maybe only Gretsky has ever been in the rarified atmosphere that the Fed is occupying right now. Tiger Woods has been there, but it's different with golf - even when you're at your most untouchable best, you still lose more than you win. And Jordan... great as he was, someone was always nipping at his heels, making him reach deep.

No one even seems to challenge Moby Fed these days, unless it's Rafael Nadal on clay, and something tells me those halcyon days are about to come to an end. As has been noted ad nauseum, Fed won this Aussie title without dropping a set, a feat that has not been achieved at a Slam in 27 years. I would say right now that the Federer/Sampras debate is about over. Never was Sampras at this level. If Fed retires tomorrow and does not eclipse Pete's 14 Slams, then Sampras must be said to have had the better career, but as for the "who's the better player" argument, Elvis has left the building, and his name is Roger Federer.

What Serena Williams accomplished at this Open is nothing short of astonishing. She hadn't been in a Grand Slam final since 2005. She'd battled injuries, weight and fitness issues, depression, and perhaps most detrimental to her career, a seeming disinterest in playing tennis. She entered this tournament ranked number 81 in the world and on absolutely no one's radar screen as a possible finalist.

One thing that I noticed in her run to the Championship was that despite the fact that she is years away from the days when she dominated the sport, her opponents are still intimidated by her mere presence on the other side of the net. Israeli Shahar Peer, known for her pluck, had Serena on the ropes in the quarterfinal and couldn't close the deal, and there was a clear psychological edge to her ultimate submission. Serena played an ugly match, and easily could have lost, but reached deep and willed the victory. That was her trademark when she was at her best. That is the stuff of champions.

As for her utter pantsing (skirtsing? what is the feminine of pantsing?) of Sharparova on Friday/Saturday, I thought my man Steve Tignor summed it up nicely in his column over at Tennis.com, The Wrap:

From the first swing of virtually every rally, Serena was the stronger player. And that included Sharapova’s serve, which was uncharacteristically short and erratic—a cream puff much of the time. Serena, by contrast, had full confidence in both of her serves from start to finish, and anything that Sharapova left hanging was punished with a clean, laser-like, blatant winner. Even Serena’s stance and swing were more efficient and committed to making a forceful play with each shot. No wonder Sharapova’s father, Yuri, showed up looking like he wished he could prolong a two-day bender for a few more hours.

Serena says that she is now committed to tennis again, to regaining the number-one ranking, to winning more Slams and dominating the sport once again. On that front, she's off to a hell of a good start. Don't be surprised to see Serena and the Fed do a few more Slam-dances before the year is out.