Castles in the Sand

*!Phpcy3nazpm

*

by Pete Bodo

It seems like a statistician's error, but Serena Williams is back in the U.S. Open women's singles final for the first time in **six years. If you had told me three years I would have said, "Oh." If you said four, I would have responded, "Are you sure."

But six? I feel like Rip van Winkle or someone. Where does the time go?

But there she'll stand, a female player in a sport that has managed to wipe out some of the most cardinal rules by which many women live their public lives: never get caught wearing the same thing as another woman at an event; don't wear an outfit more than once to an occasion where you might see people you saw the last time you went out, and -  don't rip a 100-mph backhand passing shot at an opponent's face. It's un-ladylike, the game's equivalent of getting into a hair-pulling cat-fight at the buffet table, where one of you might end up with your face smooshed into the platter of chopped chicken liver.

Serena went for the decapitation option - twice - in her semifinal with Dinara Safina on Arthur Ashe stadium this afternoon, once early in the match (at 1-2, with Safina serving and already up a break), and then in the third game of set 2, by which time Serena was ahead, 6-3, 1-1. The second effort found its mark on Safina's breast, and it might just as well have been a dagger in the chest because it ultimately led to the critical service break that sealed the match. Lest you fall into the camp that tsk-tsks such barbaric acts (leave that stuff to the men, girls, you're better than that!), it was all in a day's work.

At the net for the post-match air-kiss or soul hand-clasp, the first words out of Serena's mouth were a sort-of apology - something to the effect that it was nothing personal. It was refreshing to see that Dinara smiled and assured Serena that no offense was taken. Can you tell that she had an older brother - one who happens to be in the same league as Serena in the Big Personality department?

I went on at length about this because there wasn't a whole heck of a lot more to say about that semifinal, which followed a more nuanced and absorbing clash between Elena Dementieva and Jelena Jankovic. The wind that signaled the approach of Tropical Storm Hannah was kicking up by the time the singles action began, and if it was tough for Elena and Elena-with-a-J (I wonder if Dementieva feels she somehow got shortchanged in the name department?), it was close to hell for the women who followed on, which probably was a worse deal for Safina than Serena.

This was only Safina's second Grand Slam semifinal (her first was in Paris, in June), and the first one she's played under seriously trying conditions. It takes a battle-hardened veteran to approach a Grand Slam semi as another day in the office, and especially as a bad day at the office. The standard approach is to focus on what you need to do, with an underlying ambition to showcase the game that got you there - to show what kind of stuff you've got.

Oh, sure, you know it's going to be windy, and with the help of your coach you come up with some adjustments in the game plan. But that stuff doesn't really penetrate, not as far down as that place where your desire to impress and strut your stuff - blast your way to the final in a blaze of glorious winners - resides. And when that urge is stymied, it undermines your game like sea water flooding over a sand castle.

It's funny, but as I was writing the words above I was also listening to Safina's presser, and this is how she put it:  "Well, it's tough to enjoy it when it's -it was pretty windy today. . . I would say it's too bad that from my side, maybe today I was 80 percent (on my game), but I spent 60 percent of that on being negative on the court, like shooting (sic) around and complaining about everything instead of spending all 80 percent totally focused on just the point-by-point. And this was - I think I was behaving like a really spoiled girl on the court today. This I cannot permit myself playing in semifinal of a Grand Slam. So I have to really learn from these things if I want to get better."

If anything, Safina was being a bit harsh on herself, but she got the point. Joy is great, joy is fun, playing your best tennis under ideal conditions is the grail. But overall, it isn't about the joy. It's all about avoiding that sickening feeling and the thought: I just lost a Grand Slam semi .

Those words articulated something we all saw and thought, but I wanted to explore this subject because the most valuable takeaway isn't that it's hard to play well and focus fully under difficult conditions; it's that the ability to do it is more of an acquired or innate ability than an act of will. Did Safina know it was going to be windy? Of course. But she didn't want to accept that reality.

By nature, the best players have an enormous advantage under difficult conditions because they're usually well past the point of wanting to show or prove anything to anyone; they're just out there to get the job done. To win, joy be danged. Although the following words were spoken by Serena in a hybrid question-compliment,they're relevant here: "I have an amazing will. I love to win. More than anything I love to win. And I guess that gives me the will to win."

Up until today, one of the players who showed a will to win comparable to Serena's was Dementieva. She looked extremely good throughout this tournament, adding a new, dangerous layer of drive to her game. Dementieva's game has always had a basic fund of "aggression," but it's been inhibited by her well-chronicled service struggles, and it has disfigured her game.

The chronically shaky and at times downright ghastly serving affected her game the way a steady ocean breeze and salt affects a sapling, bending and shaping it out of the form it would naturally take under less harsh conditions. In short, Dementieva has always had a remarkably purposeful game, but she's been unable to fulfill that purpose because of her serve. Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying her great achievements - an Olympic singles gold medal, a fistful of Grand Slam semis and finals. She's a magnificent athlete, and some of her forehands are acts of art.  But you shudder to think of what her record might look like had her serve been about to provide her with adequate support.

This aspect of Dementieva's game is easier to appreciate and understand when it's contrasted to the game of her opponent today. Jankovic has a well-rounded game, but even more importantly, a well-integrated game. Her serve is the weakest part of that game, but instead of preventing her from realizing the goals engraved in her groundshots or obstructing the purpose of her most effective game,  it's been instrumental in shaping her into perhaps the best retriever in the game today, and one of the WTA's most deadly counterpunchers. She was well-equipped to weather Dementieva's aggressive ground game.

Yesterday, in a Tennis.com video preview of today's matches, I suggested that Dementieva could win if she attacked Jankovic's serve - especially the second serve. Doing that, she might have opened up the court to play two and three-shot combinations to win points quickly, perhaps even to move forward and pressure Jankovic at the net. Dementieva was unable or unwilling to do that today. Granted, Jankovic posted an outstanding 75 percent first-serve percentage, but that only made the mission of successfully attacking her serve more pressing; it isn't like Jankovic's serve, even at its best, is a pre-emptive weapon.

Which brings us to another fairly subtle (or is "arcane" the better word?) general observation. Ever notice how some matches never produce the kind of ebb and flow we like, and play out in a one-dimensional way, with a single "turning-point" that sometimes isn't even obvious or dramatic?  It just marks the point where one player relinquishes control of a match and his or her opponent takes it and never lets go - sometimes doesn't have have to fight particularly hard to retain possession.

That's how it was today in the first semi. Dementieva broke early, and toughed out two break points and three deuces to go up, 3-1. The women then took turns holding, and Dementieva found herself leading 30-love on Jankovic's serve in the seventh game - two points from building a 5-2 lead. But for reasons known only to her (actually, not even to her), she suddenly seemed to lose focus. She stood flat-footed and committed three consecutive unforced service-return errors. At 40-30, Jankovic ended the game with a backhand winner, and although she didn't appear to feel the adrenalin rush of a turning point, and Dementieva didn't appear crushed the same, the listless game was an omen.

In the next game, Dementieva was broken - and she was broken again after a Jankovic hold. So much for the set. And while there were exciting points in the second set, and pile of breaks both ways, Jankovic was in command - insofar as you can ever say that of someone who specializes in making spectacular retrieves and winning points from seemingly hopeless positions. She broke Dementieva easily to end it with a symmetrical 6-4,6-4 score.

Dementieva admitted later that fatigue had set in: "I just feel like I did too many unforced errors today. So she (Jankovic) was trying to do everything, and I just was trying to go for the winner and couldn't make it. I feel like it was a good run, you know. Like I won 12 matches in a row (including the Olympics). I mean, just feel a little tired today. I couldn't play my best. . .I couldn't close the point(s), you know. I was trying to play aggressively, but I couldn't make the last one."

I'm going to keep my powder on Jankovic for the women's final, but two statistics said a great deal about both matches (my comrade-in-video, Jon Levey is the one who figured it out, lest any of you suspect me of genius): Dementieva made 42 unforced errors, and Safina made 41. By contrast, Jankovic made just 22, and Serena just 21. I'll leave it to you to ponder the symmetries therein. And in the winning percentage on second serves department, Dementieva logged 32 percent (8 of 25), and Safina recorded 29 percent (6 of 21). By contrast, Jankovic won 50 per cent of her second serves, and Serena made 48 per cent.

This time, the statistics did tell the story. Might as well consider the micro as well as the macro.

See y'all tomorrow!