Clijsters victorious again but Federer falters

KIM CLIJSTERS and Roger Federer left the US Open with their reputations enhanced in vastly different ways. The Belgian won in an embarrassingly lopsided women’s final, yet still was the darling of New York; the Swiss legend fell short of the men’s title decider but he, too, graced Flushing Meadows with special dignity.

It was difficult to take the women’s final seriously, the 15th time in a row this match has failed to get into a third set, and Clijsters’ 6-2, 6-1 win over Vera Zvonareva served chiefly to underline the reality that the women’s game is perplexingly uneven.

When Federer failed to reach his seventh successive final at a tournament he almost owned, going down 7-5, 1-6, 7-5, 2-6, 5-7 to Novak Djokovic in the second semi-final, he left tennis bereft. There was a palpable urge for Federer to play Rafa Nadal in the final. It was almost written into the storyline before a ball was struck two weeks ago, as the showdown of all showdowns loomed.

So one wondered how Federer would handle failure, given it has lately become a worryingly regular experience for a player for whom winning is almost an addiction. Neither Clijsters nor he disappointed.

It was Clijsters’s task to celebrate a victory that lasted 59 minutes without demeaning her opponent. She somehow managed that in talking about a match that had a single highlight, a 27-stroke rally, and was, in the end, little more than a stage on which Zvonareva’s backhand disintegrated in keeping with her temper. The Russian thrashed her racket and her discipline. It was an unedifying and dispiriting spectacle, given her regal progress at Flushing Meadows over the past two weeks.

In the absence of any tennis worth the name to discuss, the nub of the winner’s narrative was returning to a place where last year she lit up the sporting landscape by coming out of retirement to win the title for the second time.

Three US Open trophies now grace the home she shares with her American husband Brian in New Jersey and she rounded out the image of domestic bliss by sharing the moment with her young daughter, Jada. They made a pretty picture – in stark contrast to the tennis that had gone before.

“When I started my US summer the US Open was my main goal,” Clijsters said. “It was a new situation for me as well, going back to the Grand Slam where I was actually defending my title for the first time. Not having been able to do that in 2006 was frustrating at the time. Last year it was a different kind of attention. People were still curious to see how I was playing.”

This year her fans were left in little doubt. After an ordinary start to the tournament she was solid and, when it mattered, utterly focused. “Upsets can happen in the beginning of a tournament and I wasn’t playing my best tennis when I wanted to. But I was able to lift my game in the last two matches when I needed to. That’s what I’m most pleased with.”

Federer, in stark contrast, had to look defeat squarely in the eye. He did it well enough but it was tough. Unlike Clijsters, his path to the final four had been untroubled. And then it all went wrong.

“You can’t turn back time,” the Swiss said, referring to a couple of close points he would love to play again while, inadvertently, making a comment appropriate to his whole career.

“I’m not as disappointed as if it had been the final. That’s the only positive news to enjoy.”

In defeat this summer – at Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Toronto – Federer has not always found the right words to disguise his frustration. Here he did. The Swiss addressed, too, the question on everyone’s lips: did he not feel thwarted in not getting to play Nadal in the US final at last, given they had met at every other major championship?

“I would have loved to play against him here,” he said. “I did my hard yards the last six years making it to the finals and he was unfortunately never there. And now, one point away from this happening . . . obviously it’s a bit of a disappointment. But being there and losing – that wouldn’t have been nice either.”

It was a moment of levity that lifted the gloom. Then he slipped in a comment loaded with significance: “Now we’ll never know how it would have gone.”

It sounded too final. It sounded as if Federer did not take it for granted, as he has done throughout his career, that he would at least figure in this scenario again. Yet he wants more titles, still has the hunger to validate his greatness.

Then he turned the light on Nadal in the most generous way. “It’s great for tennis and it’s great for him at a young age to have the opportunity [to complete all the slams]. It’s exciting that we’re doing something very special in tennis at the same time. I won’t watch . . . but I hope he wins.”

GuardianService