*Peter Bodo is on vacation until August 16th. In his absence, we are proud to present commentary by the TW Tribe.

*One might say that it was cheating to wait for the Toronto final results to write on the topic of "what do you think Roger's chances are for the U.S. Open," but wait I did. The prior guest posts have been so good that I felt this wait was necessary.

Now then. What are Federer's chances? I'd say that they are pretty good. How's that for the type of in-depth analysis you've all come to expect from Dunlop Maxply?

Just kidding! What in the world are we witnessing here? I think we actually witnessed a couple of things in Toronto. One is that changes in the game have officially rendered Jimmy Connors' record 105 career ATP singles titles unreachable.

The reason is because the world in which Roger plays officially began in 1990. That was the year that the ATP began the system of mandatory entries into the nine Masters Series tournaments. Assuming that a player competes in the four Slams as well, the total comes to thirteen tournaments. Roger only played two non-Masters tournaments last year and this trend is likely to continue.

Under this system a young, up-and-coming player might reasonably expect to enter twenty or so tournaments per year. Until (and this is the key) they reach the stage where they are subject to mandatory entry into the 9 TMS tournaments, which would be about when they break into the top 40. These tournaments are now so important that you can't expect players like Federer or Nadal to play an additional five or six other tournaments throughout the season.

Thus, there will never be another Connors, who played twenty tournaments a year from age 21 to 24 and never dropped below fifteen per year in his entire career. With his win in Toronto, Roger reached 40 career singles titles. As Federer only plays around fifteen tournaments per year, there is likely no chance he can win another 64 tournaments and surpass Connors' record.

However, when one metric becomes obsolete, others emerge -- Connors' 160 consecutive weeks at #1. Given Roger's current strech of over 130 and his point total, if he does win the U.S. Open I think that record may, as a matter of pure math, fall next year.

I've written before about Connors' amazing competitive nature. What I think we are seeing these days is almost (and I have to say almost because of Roger's age) a second coming of a player with Connors' sheer love of competition.

One needs to sometimes return to bare statistics because artistry can blind one to the level of consistency. There are, already, many posts on Federer's level of artistry flowing from the TW Tribe. Allow me to add one more way of looking at Roger in particular and tennis in general.

When a match begins, any match, think of the players as two "tennis bank accounts." They start the match with whatever they have in their accounts. It's a mixture of fitness, stroke production and, most importantly, concentration. Whomever has the most in their bank account wins the overwhelming majority of the time. That's it.

This analogy would be perfect and easy, if it were not for the fact that "concentration" is a function of three critical components.

First, much of the ability to concentrate depends upon what a person is used to. Many players can concentrate very well against opponents of their own level. Move the level of play up a notch and these players are quickly required to concentrate so much, on each point, that they simply run out of concentration.

Second, some people have the ability to extend their concentration by sheer force of will. Maintaining concentration for a two-week period is probably the single greatest challenge in winning a Grand Slam for players who have enough in the "other sections" of their "bank account."

Finally, one aspect of concentration is how "off" a player allows himself to be on a given day. Until Roger came along Connors held the record, in my mind, of the guy who was simply not willing to allow himself to have an off day (for a good ten years in a row).

Thus, what of the Toronto final? I will leave the details to others, but I will say that I strongly believe it is not a question of other players "giving up" against Roger. Gasquet started making "withdrawals" from his "bank account" right from the start. By the last game of the match, Gasquet's "bank account" was empty. This is a pattern that is repeated regularly. Roger's opponents can stay with him for a certain period of time but, after awhile, there is simply nothing left in their accounts to draw upon.

So, what are Rogers's chances? Obviously, they are good. However, it is more than the basic ability to get the job done. It's the ability and the concentration, plus the fact that Roger has a very deep reservoir of the latter and is not afraid to use it. If Federer is willing to use these strengths at the Rogers Cup in a relatively (for him) meaningless final, I'd have to bet he'll use it as the U.S. Open as well.

Unless something changes radically in the next two weeks, that's my bet.

--Dunlop Maxply