I have taped every single one of his matches for about 18 months now out of fear that this match would be the last one we ever see. I guess I've had that fear since the 2007 loss at the USO to David Ferrer, where Rafa was literally doubled over in pain from tendinitis. He came back from that and went on a tear in 2008 that included an Olympic gold medal. But he runs a lot less now than in those fearless days. Makes me want to cry to see old tapes of him running around imposing himself on the court. He continues to grow and improve. This time last year we were all wondering about his new forehand and saying why would he tinker with a good thing? Now, I really hope he figures out a way to successfully re-tool his game. The ominous part is his performance last winter, and his obvious struggles with confidence.

But this article was about Novak! And you gotta love his form. Like you said, he has almost perfect form on his groundstrokes. I've learned to live with his temperamental physical constitution - he'll probably always be vulnerable to some ailment. He's still a joy to watch play, and I think its interesting that he's ahead of Andy Murray. As good as Murray is, Novak is better. Even Andy said at one point, in that solemn voice of his, that he would consider his year a success if he came out in front of Novak at the end. (He said this in front of Novak, and then both of them cracked up).

Wow! thanks for posting, Deborah! I'm so impressed that the company is still around. The Davis Cup trophy is one of the most beautiful trophies I have ever seen. (I've never seen it in person, of course). I'd like to drop over on my next visit to Boston and maybe someone could show me some pictures!

wonderful article. I agree with everything, but I note that Novak played pretty well last year. He had some classic tough matches, played the most matches of any on tour last year, and also played the most consistent tennis of anyone on tour - making the finals of quite a few tournaments. His performance in the majors is, as you note, and like that of Andy Murray, not as stellar as his form would lead one to believe.

In fact, Novak was a joy to watch last year.

I think where these guys end up in the rankings, and their ability to win majors: Murray, Djokovic, Delpotro, depends more on Nadal's performance rather than their own - and not because they can't beat Rafa. I have a theory that all of them still have to learn how to manage their way deep in the majors - that the field is so deep that they have to have enough left at the business end of a tournament to get across the finish line. The irony is that all of these guys are getting better - including Roger! We truly are blessed right now with a golden age of tennis.

OK. I"ll buy that. but I still think you could call an attitude like that cockiness - that is, the expectation that you understand Roger and know how to beat him because you have done it a couple of times in a Master's Series event.

That cockiness also came through in a comment to the media after Greg Rudseski made some remarks about Andy needing to be more aggressive or he would never win. And Andy said 'I know a little bit more about tennis than Greg Rudsedski'

Really? That may be true, but you're 22 years old! One would think that the guy would be more of a listener.

Now, it is true that Andy has carved out his own path, and is extraordinarily self-possessed for a 22-year old. He's fired coaches, and he's for sure the one in charge of his team.

But it implies a certain cockiness! An unwillingness to listen.

Now he's going on experience with Roger (as you point out), and he studies his rivals' tapes in detail, I understand, so ... I still think that there is something about Andy that makes him think he knows a little bit more about tennis than Roger Federer.

And in his post-match remarks on the award stand, receiving the runner-up trophy, were the first truly humble words that he spoke about being able to one day play as well as Roger. Maybe, like Djokovic did 12-18 months ago, Murray still has some maturing to do.

Very interesting! You saw the men's final the way I did (I posted a similar article here earlier today). Though Marianne seemed to see it more of a match of domination by Roger,where Andy never could get his footing, I saw it more as Andy coming out, as he had against Nadal, guns blazing, because that tactic is obvious against Nadal, while I think Andy thinks he can hang with, and out tactic Roger to his peril.

One question for you. Andre Agassi, then Pete Sampras, and now a whole host of folks have announced that the era of Roger and Rafa is coming to a close.

I don't see it that way. I still see Roger and Rafa as the major Slam winners for some time to come, with occasional give-aways to the likes of Delpo, Cilic, and even Murray. let's say Rafa wins the French. I would bet that either Roger or Rafa would win Wimbledon. On hard courts, I see Delpo, Murray, Cilic, Tsonga, Djokovic, a whole host of contenders.

The main reason I don't think the era of Roger nor Rafa is over is that both of those men know how to manage a tournament, they know how to face the big points and the big moments. All the younger guys have big game, no doubt about it. But they have problems with managing to stay fresh through 7 games in the best of five format. Cilic had too many 5-setters, likewise Tsonga couldn't come back after finishing off Djokovic.

Do you see it that way?

It's an incredible time for men's (and ladies now that the Belgians are back) tennis. I certainly think that the top ten players are all Slam contenders on paper.

Yes, Justine, like Roger, has the most beautiful game in the sport! such a pleasure to watch. I expect to enjoy her matches in encore form of Dementieva, Wickmayer, from this tournament for many months to come, for the elegant and beautiful tennis.

Took me a long time to appreciate Serena for what she brings to the sport. And, personally, I believe that both Williams' sisters are playing much more versatile and diverse tennis than they did when they started out. They were hard to watch when they started out, and I don't know how many times I wanted them to get a new coach. Henin, in particular, played a much more all-around game.

Starting in 2008, Serena's tennis has exploded in terms of being multi-dimensional. I think she is doing two things - copying Pete Sampras on serve, and Rafa Nadal on topspin. Now I can only marvel at her serving prowess. Perfect example is this final with Henin. Pete Bodo over on TEnnis.com even wrote that a player lives and dies by the serve; serving trumps a ground-game every time; and Serena's match-ups with Henin will be characterized by that key difference as long as Henin's serving is as poor as it is now.

One of the things I marvel at is how Serena has improved in that area. It speaks to about attitude when you can decide to adopt other players techniques into your game. She identified the places where her game needed to improve over what it was in 2004; 2005; 2006, and she did it.

Nemesis! that's what I meant! (smiles).

while they may look like mirror images at the Australian Open, their careers are not exactly the mirror images of each other. Roger is clearly the second best clay-courter of this generation. His doppleganger is a player who many regard as the best clay-courter of all time. When that player (Nadal) was not in the final of the FO, then Roger was able to make it all the way through, and capture his career Grand slam. By contrast, Henin has not shown a particular competency on grass that makes her the rival of the legends on that surface. She wants to win on grass, and has come back with big changes to her game in order to help her achieve the competency needed. Roger already has a Slam-winning competency on his (hertofore unachieved) surface.

Very interesting analysis of this match! I saw it quite a bit differently, not having as much as appreciation for Federer's game as frustration for Murray not seeming to be able to put it together. But you're right, one reason Murray couldn't come out firing was that Federer employed his considerable skills to nullifying what Andy could do.

I think a couple of things were at work - one was Andy Murray having a match in which he didn't bring out his attack style soon enough. Andy was complacent (cocky??). Andy CAN really come out swinging, examples include the second set against Cilic, and of course, the first and second sets against Rafa. If he thought he as going to out-tactic Federer, it did not work, and he should have been prepared for that. Andy was not even making his shots. He was making the circus shots against Isner, Nadal, and Cilic. But when it came to Roger, he started missing. Nerves? I'm not seeing it as so much due to Roger's play, but due to Andy's focus in the early stages of the match.

I didn't think Andy would get nervous - he seemed stoic and ready prior to this final, the neophyte nerves having been worked at the USO in 2008. But I think in the post-match demeanor and his remarks at the ceremony, Andy showed us that he was feeling the pressure.

The third set was where the real contest began, to me. Andy got it together. And then we saw Roger's brilliance at work. The level of play went up for both players. And I suppose we can lodge one more in the column for the wonderous era of Roger.