U.S. Open: Murray può approfittare del fattore "fatica" (The Guardian)

26-08-2012

If we can drag ourselves away from parochial concerns in the final nervous moments before the curtain goes up on the US Open, a tantalising thought emerges: this is a major, the last of the summer, in which bookmakers are as clueless as their customers.

Who, with any certainty, would say that Roger Federer, for instance, has enough juice in his 31-year-old legs to do at Flushing Meadows over the next fortnight what he managed to do once – but, pointedly, not a month later, under slightly less pressure – at Wimbledon this summer?

The fear must be that seven consecutive wins, the final few crammed into this ludicrously backend-loaded tournament for the benefit of CBS, might be beyond him twice in one year. He has, after all, managed it just once in two and a half years.

So, while the Swiss is the rightful favourite on form alone, he is not an altogether convincing one, especially among those who snipe at his lustre. Meanwhile, his worldwide army of disciples remain staunch in their faith. Reality lies somewhere in between these disparate views. He is an incumbent champion, the most recently crowned of the Big Three, and there is a notable absentee here in Rafael Nadal, as well as a stuttering contender in Novak Djokovic. Yet, as beautiful as Federer's tennis is on a good day, it is more like a rose than a cactus, flowering when encouraged, dying in the sun.

Since beating Andy Murray in the Australian final of 2010, Federer has revived his career as if repainting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with a toothbrush. He continues to defy all doubters. It is nevertheless hard to escape the impression that, in 2012, he is Muhammad Ali to Djokovic's Leon Spinks, where a decade ago he was Ali to Pete Sampras's Sonny Liston.

If tennis more accurately reflected the dangerous incremental decline that makes boxing such a dangerous undertaking, Federer might be in for a bruising experience. But it does not. He is the world's No 1 again, and has held that position more than anyone in the history of the game. The only pain he risks is to his ego.

His determination – driven by awareness of his own talent and the killing gift of exploiting the varied and minor weaknesses of his peers – keeps him interested when a thirtysomething father of five-year-old twins might otherwise be spending more time with his travel agent. He will not retire as long as he thinks he can beat these guys and for too long that self-belief has been under brutal pressure. Now, he truly believes again.

How different was the tennis landscape even 12 months ago when Djokovic came to New York a raging good bet to extend his golden year to improbable heights and, thanks to a stirring battle with Nadal in the final, he did so memorably. He had confounded Federer in their semi-final with winners of outrageous audacity to save two match points (for the second year in a row against him), inciting the loser to complain that such hit-and-hope tennis had no place at the highest level of the game.

Maybe not. But it worked. And so did the Serb's extraordinary will to win in Melbourne a few months later, twice: against Murray in a wonderful semi-final and Nadal in a final two days later that was barely believable for its quality and longevity. Thereafter, Djokovic has occasionally looked spent, troubled by personal grief and a creaking shoulder, and, after being bagled for only the second time in a Tour final last weekend, by Federer in Cincinnati, he said that he was tired. That is alarm-bell self-doubt.

And what of Murray? He has believers in John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Goran Ivanisevic and, of course, Ivan Lendl. The Czech is no cheerleader, though. He talks about his client-employer with the same detachment he brought to his own glorious career.

Sure, he was impressed with Murray's win over Federer to win Olympic gold at Wimbledon, yet he was not there, preferring to communicate through the hired help.

He admitted he didn't even watch all the matches live – "I was doing other stuff" – although he stayed on his couch for the final. "He played really well," Lendl said, "and it was nice to see him win it." Well, break out the champagne. But that is Lendl, and Murray has benefited from his measured rather than obsequious guidance.

Asked if such a win could give Murray a new mental strength, Lendl would only say: "I know you guys like to create headlines and get quotes like that. But, if we're going to get along, that's not me. I hate headlines and creating sensations. I'd rather downplay this. On the surface, yes – but you never know how things are going to play out. Let's hope so."

Want a tip? Make your bets notional ones. This tournament is not a good conveyance, as they say, although Murray is better placed than ever before to beat the odds – and maybe Djokovic in the final.