a new clause to an age old law

"Thou shall reap when you go for it and it falls for you; out it falls, down you go" - Layman wording, but universal truth.

In every aspect of life, conservatism is one option. The benefits of this lifestyle lie above the zero line and waver around it, rarely dipping into the negative or soaring into the rarefied heights of the positive.

Adventurism, on the other hand, cannot be described by mean and standard deviation. A comprehensive understanding of random processes is required to statistically describe it. Of course, one can always learn through experience. The peaks and troughs come about randomly. They take their toll. People drop off the edge. A strong mind is needed to cope with the steady state of turbulence. But as the adage on top suggests, when the stars align, you get to be on top of Everest.

This is the way of the world. Adults bow to it. Youths fight it. Eventually, realize it and then pick a side.

With a 1-13 career head to head record, Roddick didn't have much of an option with respect to picking sides. He had to go for it. In his mind, he must have known that he was risking another 6-4 6-0 6-2 scoreline, but prolonged rallying coupled with some lucky breaks could have taken him as far as four sets and no more. He was up against Federer and Federer's opponents don't get gifts. Not whole matches anyway.

Federer knew the law as well as anyone. He must have known that the only way to repel an all out successful attack by Roddick would be to launch the heavy artillery himself. Which he did not do. Instead, he just changed the law. Rather, added an escape clause to the law. One which carries his name henceforth.

Roddick went for it and successfully too. He crushed his groundstrokes and yanked Federer all around the court. He served "from a tree" and didn't give Federer a whiff of a chance. If Roddick can play better, the world is yet to see it. Still, he did not win a single set. Three sets and he was out of his beloved Open. Writing that Roddick was a broken (in spirit) man would be an easy thing to do, but if he means half of what he said in his post match presser (about perspective), he is probably the one that we all need to look up to, more than we look up to Federer.

Federer was up for the match yesterday from the start. It was full throttled action from the time the first ball of the match was struck. Yet, he was not the one pressing the accelerator. He just bid his time. He must have hoped that Roddick would fall off the cliff in the tiebreaker. Roddick did not. So, he hit two crucial passes. Set one in hand. Ditto with the second set. Steve Tignor captures it well here.

Truth is, not even Federer can pull off both sets of such a battle every single time. Trouble for the rest of the world is, he has options for all possibilities, each one of world beating quality. If he had lost the first set, he would have upped his game just a little bit (and by 'up', I mean, gotten more aggressive) and won the second (just like he did against Feliciano Lopez). Under the very unlikely circumstance of him losing two high quality sets, the opponent will have to contend with a fired up aggressive Federer, while at the same time confront the "giant leap for mankind" that one would have to take to close out the match. For any of these conjectures, the odds are long.

Yesterday, Roddick could have won. I would go as far as to say that Roddick would have won. But for that to happen, someone needs to inform Federer that while the backhand slice and topspin are tennis shots, the backhand flick is not. It belongs to the domain of table tennis, tennis' poor cousin. The flick was deployed countless times to salvage a piledriver forehand crushed to Federer's backhand. That, to me, was why Federer won yesterday.