Nadal and Federer Enough For ATP?

The final of the ATP Masters Series tournament in Rome last week only confirmed what has been developing over the last two years.

We have a heated rivalry on our hands at the top of the men's tennis world.

Swashbuckling Spaniard Rafael Nadal took out the ever-dominant Roger Federer in five epic sets, 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6, 7-6. Lasting over five hours, the match felt eerily similar to the five-hour classic in last year's Rome final, in which Nadal also prevailed.

The difference, of course, is that last year Nadal defeated Guillermo Coria, he of a whopping zero major championships. This time, however, Nadal stared down arguably the most dominant player the ATP Tour has ever seen. And then he took him down.

But it's not like the Spaniard has never done this before. Nadal and Federer have now faced off six times, with Nadal holding a 5-1 advantage that surely has many tennis fans assuming the aforementioned statistic is a misprint.

It's not. But Nadal's 5-1 record against the world No. 1 is somewhat explicable.

The tennis analysts and fans who, after the Rome tournament, began to whisper that the Nadal/Federer rivalry is one-sided are grossly mistaken. To Roger Federer's credit, three of his losses have come on clay, a surface Nadal has dominated to the tune of a record 53 consecutive victories. The Spaniard has not lost on the red stuff since unheralded Igor Andreev shocked him in Valencia in early 2005 (I highly recommend asking your tennis buddies that trivia question if you wish to stump them cold).

In my humble opinion, Federer taking Nadal to a fifth-set tiebreaker on clay is the equivalent of a three, maybe four-set victory on hard courts. And on grass, well, Nadal would not even stay on the court with the Swiss star. So while Nadal has gotten the best of Federer recently, and probably will do so again at the upcoming French Open, one has to think that Roger will get his fair share of revenge in this rivalry when the hard-court season heats up in the fall.

The point is this is a rivalry in the truest of senses, and it is exactly what the men's tennis game needs. With Pete Sampras retiring in 2002 and Andre Agassi on the way out, fan interest in the sport has been dwindling, especially in the United States given the lack of American star power. In covering the four Grand Slams, SportsCenter is good for showing approximately one point of the championship matches in their highlight reel. Maybe two points if the match involved either Agassi or Andy Roddick. Non-Grand Slam tournaments don't even sniff ESPN highlights. All they get is the scrolling bottom line.

Now when the game gets slighted in this way by SportsCenter, or by Pardon the Interruption's Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser (who, in the off-chance they discuss tennis, always maintain they've never heard of anyone in tennis outside of Federer, Nadal, Roddick, and Marat Safin's ex-girlfriend), I feel inclined to pitch a fit and hurl projectiles at the TV.

Unfortunately, for the normal sports fan/casual tennis fan, showing the score or at most one or two points during highlights is enough. Anything more means less time for beloved baseball web gems. Even worse, showing an extra clip of a Sunday tennis match could reduce Chris Berman's weekly Fastest-Three-Minutes-In-Sports NFL highlights to Chris Berman's Fastest-Two-Minutes-And-Forty-Five-Seconds-In-Sports. And, of course, that would be totally unacceptable to the everyday SportsCenter viewer.

But I digress. What Nadal and Federer are doing, quite simply, is putting the game back on the map. Individually, they are hands down the two most entertaining players to watch, albeit for very different reasons. Nadal is a specimen of unprecedented proportions, and with his sleeveless shirt and trademarked clamdiggers, he is not afraid to show it. His raw emotion, as seen by his vicious fist-pumps that follow almost every single winner he strikes, never ceases to captivate the crowds. Federer, on the other hand, amazes with his fluidity and ease with which he plays the game. He can hit any shot from anywhere on the court.

Putting them together — on the same court at the same time — is simply God's gift to diehard tennis fan. Their contrasting styles and unrivaled skill levels have provided us and will continue to provide us with some of the most interesting and intense tennis matches since John McEnroe/Bjorn Borg. Nadal and Federer will satisfy the appetite of the hardcore tennis fan for years to come.

But if the sport is to truly be saved in the United States, an American player must step up and turn the dynamic duo into a holy trinity.

The problem, of course, is that the candidates are few and far between.

And by few, I mean two.

Let's start with who the savior of American tennis is not going to be.

Andre Agassi finally appears to have nothing left in the tank. He is skipping this year's clay-court season to get ready for Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, hoping for one last triumphant run through a Grand Slam tournament, ala Pete Sampras, 2002 U.S. Open. In all likelihood, however, we saw Agassi's last thrilling Grand Slam moment in his five-set victory over James Blake in last year's epic U.S. Open quarterfinal.

Robby Ginepri showed flashes of brilliance in reaching the semifinals of that same U.S. Open, before falling to Agassi in five sets. But he lacks the game to soar all the way into the top five, and quite frankly, he's not who tennis fans want to see there anyway.

I was lucky enough to be in a box in Arthur Ashe Stadium last year to witness one of the biggest victories of his career, a five-set win over Tommy Haas in the third round of the Open. Although it was one of the most entertaining matches I've seen in Flushing Meadows, our box was by far the rowdiest and most pro-Ginepri section of the crowd (we still maintain that Ginepri would have lost the match had it not been for us). Judging from the wine-and-cheese atmosphere of the rest of the stadium, you would not have even known an American player was even participating in the proceedings.

Same goes for Mardy Fish and Taylor Dent. Of course, they have another small problem. They just aren't very good at tennis. I honestly do not think I have heard anything about either one of them since they both got lucky at the 2004 Athens Olympics.

That leaves us with James Blake and Andy Roddick.

Blake certainly has a following, and one that certainly would expand if his on-court results called for it. The raucous "J-Block" made headlines at the 2005 U.S. Open, and so did James' play. His good form carried over into 2006 and propelled him into the top 10 for the first time in his injury-plagued career. However, he's shown no signs of doing anything on clay, nor is his game suited to make noise at the All-England Club during Wimbledon.

We'll just have to wait for the U.S. Open, where his stunning upset of Nadal last year was one of the most amazing displays of tennis I have ever witnessed live. But to consistently challenge Nadal and Federer, he would have to play like that match in, match out. It's unlikely, to say the least.

We all expected great things from Andy Roddick after he prevailed in the 2003 U.S. Open. But in an era where statisticians love to use asterisks (mainly due to the presence of steroids in baseball), I propose an asterisk by the victory denoting that it occurred before Roger Federer emerged as a dominant force.

Since then, all Roddick has done is make coaching changes and lose matches to Federer. He put up a decent fight in the 2004 Wimbledon final against Federer, but was derailed by an ill-timed rain delay. Last year, he might as well have withdrawn after the semifinals.

Said Roddick, after the 2005 Wimbledon final, "For me, if you can't compete against the best and beat the best, then you don't deserve to win these titles. And that's what I'm faced with right now. You know, it's either figure it out, find a way, step up, or maybe I don't deserve to win this title."

Right now, only two players have found a way and stepped up in terms of captivating the tennis world. Until Blake, Roddick, or some currently unknown American emerges as rival to Nadal and Federer, that tennis world will be limited to diehards.

But for now, while the casual fan longs for something more, I'll sit back and enjoy Nadal and Federer produce what could become one of tennis's all-time great rivalries.