Novak and Mr. Mo (CC)

by Pete Bodo

Mornin'. This will be your place to gather and comment on the men's final, coming up at 4 P.M. EST today. We all know that the rain gave Novak Djokovic a precious 24 extra hours of time to recover from his epic win over Roger Federer.

It may be counter-intuitive, but there's one way in which the additional, unexpected day of rest could prove problematic for Djokovic. That's in the interruption it forced in his momentum, particularly his emotional state. Djokovic is young enough to perform one of those feats (in this case, beating Rafael Nadal for the U.S. Open title) that defy explanation. Emotion and an inspirational boost of the kind Djokovic got by derailing Federer can be powerful agents. Mr. Mo can help people achieve the unthinkable.

But with the extra day, the emotional high has 24 more hours to wear off, even as the body gains strength. And after two weeks of Grand Slam tennis, it's absurd to imagine that one day is going to result in anything like a complete physical recovery. Sure, Djokovic was glad to have the additional day, but it also engenders some challenges.

Nadal, by contrast, is on much more level emotional and physical territory. The rain delay is an inconvenience, and he's now forced to think for one additional, perhaps excruciating day, about how close he is to completing a career Grand Slam. On the whole, though, the questions about how the day off affects the chances of either man is more complicated and nuanced for Djokovic than Nadal.

I was on Tennis Channel the other night, with Justin Gimelstob and my long-time comrade Steve Flink, to review the high and low lights of the the U.S. Open. I made one of those boo-boos that anyone who goes on television as a talking head dreads—I cited those two forehand errors Federer made on those match points he had in the fifth set, and that's not the kind of error Steve Flink, a very detail and statistics-oriented guy, will allow to go by.

Of course, Novak hit two big forehand winners on those points, the first of them—that drive volley—ranks second only to Fernando Verdasco's wrap-around match-point winner (in his five-setter with David Ferrer) in the shot-of-the-tournament contest. The two errors I misappropriated actually occured one game later, when Federer was in an excellent position to break back to send the match into a tiebreaker. In a way they were more critical errors.

I take that position because there was little Federer could do about those match points—Djokovic played superbly. But the capacity to strike-back, especially after absorbing a potentially critical blow, is a standard weapon of a great player. That Federer failed to rise to that challenge says less about his ability than his hunger, and nothing at all about Djokovic, even though he played those points well enough to force those errors. The hunger to win is the same as any other appetite; it's a natural thing, not something learned or conjured up. Do you need to talk yourself into wanting a cheeseburger? And the most common and unassailable reason for refusing that cheeseburger is summed up in these words: I've had enough, thank you. . .

I don't believe Roger Federer needs more Grand Slam titles; what he does appear to need, though, is the thrill of competition, and the satisfaction of being Roger Fedrerer. The latter is more permanent than even he might realize, and you can get the former even if find yourself unseeded and laboring away out on Court 13 at the US Open, before a mere clutch of diehard fans.

Federer won't find himself out on that field court any time soon, but if the day comes when thats where he plys his trade, I will be the last person on earth to criticize him for it.