Well, for those of you who suspect that Roger Federer spent most nights these past two weeks gnawing at his fingernails, sticking pins in cloth dolls, or poring over his horoscope in the Basel Bugle, I have some unfortunate news. During the presser following his demolition of Marat Safin in the WImbledon semifinals, Federer, trying to make a point about his friendly relations with Rafael Nadal, said, "We talk. We see each other all the time in the locker room. So we were talking a lot on the rain delay, you know, when was it, when I was playing. . . Who was I playing last match?"

Somebody hollered out, Ancic!

Federer's expression said, Oh, yeah, that's the guy, I knew his name started with an A! He went on to finish his thought: "We (Rafael and I) spoke a lot, for instance. So we always see each other all the time at the practice courts. We just get in and out. But you know, during the match days we sort of talk a lot, yeah."

Well, it looks like Sunday will be another match day, although it's unlikely to stimulate much chatter between them in the locker room at around 1:30 PM, seeing as how they'll playing each other in another Grand Slam final - the sixth in a row, if you just count Roland Garros and Wimbledon. That two men with such disparate games - both once vulnerable on one surface or the other - have accumulated this record at a pair of events played on such different surfaces is astonishing. And the match on Sunday is the one in which all hail, according to many pundits, is supposed to break loose.

An awful lot of people are expecting an upset of historic proportions at Wimbledon on Sunday. Okay, I can understand how the no. 1 player in the world and holder of 12 Grand Slam titles can seem like a long-shot in the Roland Garros final; it's weird, but explicable. I'm not so sure I understand how he can be be seen as riding into an ambush here at Wimbledon, where he hasn't lost a match since 2002 and hasn't lost a set this fortnight. But maybe that's just me.

Federer looked strong against Safin today - strong but not invulnerable. So there's hope for Nadal. Safin had plenty of chances - or some chances, with a good shoot at creating many more, because that's how it is with opportunities -they're self-perpetuating. But Safin often seemed pre-occupied with the duties of his office as tennis's ranking drama queen, and disinclined to face the blows of fate or gusts of Federer excellence in an even-handed, patient manner. It's too bad, because Safin still has one of the biggest games out there; he can dictate with the best of them, and even The Mighty Fed is hard-pressed to contain Safin at his best. The problem for Safin is that when he's not at his best, he has trouble dealing with it.

All right, it was understandable that Safin would be tentative at the start.  Bingo - just like that, he was down a break and, soon, a set.  But through the long, middle portion of a match in which the only two service breaks were - literally - the bookends of the scorecard, Safin gave as good as he got. Unlike Federer, though, he never seemed convinced that the good would ultimately outweigh the bad. Patience is a critical virtue in tennis, and one that Safin sometimes lacks. Thus, approaching the tiebreaker appeared to turn him testy and cranky (if he was wearing a watch, he would have kept glancing at it) instead of eager and aware that in the 'breaker to come,  he could change the course of the match with one swipe of the racket.

Instead, a dumb error on the very first point of the tiebreaker put Safin in a big hole and more or less sealed his fate. Still, even after he lost the second set 'breaker, he served with authority, attacked successfully, and generally personified the theory that if you've got a big enough game, you're in with a chance against anyone - including Federer.

What's his name. .. Ancic, Mario Ancic, does not have a big enough game. Neither does Nikolay Davydenko or David Ferrer. Safin does. It's too bad that every time he makes an error, or sometimes even if he's just outsmarted, or outrun, Safinn feels obliged to trash a racket or, looking at the player guest box, deliver a long address, complete with expressive gestures (does anyone fling his arms wide, professing helplessness, as wantonly as Safin?). Why not save the histrionic demonstrations and soulful supplications for a time when you actuallly have something to complain  about - instead of a stupid missed passing shot at 15-all?

But that' Safin, always ready to get bent out of shape. A Muscovite in the street asks him for the time and Safin probably says, five-thirty - and then knocks over a trash barrel or air-kicks a mail box.

Someone with a more positive approach might have gone out thinking: Okay, I know it's Federer, but I'm capable of the pre-emptive strike and serving bullets.Why don't I just go out there and, making sure I take care of my serve, get into a few tiebreakers and then let 'em roll? Not Marat. Instead, he muched around, exploring options that seemed trivial, or besides the point - like challenging a Federer serve that was so far inside the service box that even his puzzled opponent had this expression on his face:

Dude, WTF???????

That particular ball was so far in that crowd got a belly laugh out of it. Oh, that Marat, what a cut-up!

That I can make light of a match that, for most players, is less an assignment than a sentence says a lot for Safin. I prefer writing one-liners to obituaries anyway, and after a while I grow weary of all those body parts and gore that lay around following another trip to the abbatoir with Federer or Nadal.  I'm fervently hoping Safin will be able to capitalize on this run at Wimbledon and re-join the world of the living - a journey that might be easier to make if he figured out that not that many people actually care that he's down on himself, irked by his towel, ticked at a ballboy, or just not "feeling it."  Watching a player pantomime his own flawed stroke after a bad shot is about as interesting as listening to some senior citizen describe the precise nature of his shoulder pain. It's a bore. You want to go into that terrain, at least have the decency to draw serious blood, preferably your own, a la Mikhail Youzhny.

We'll cut Marat a break though; we all love him, right? He won't learn a thing, but who cares? He did make a fair and relevant point when I suggested that unlike most of Federer's opponents, Safin did not look overwhelmed or overmatched out there, and wondered if he found that encouraging:

Yeah, but the beginning was terrible. I mean, like, I should have at least stayed with him a little bit longer.  But just, of course, he takes advantage. My first semifinals. I'm a little bit nervous.I'm going to try to play and try to be safe from the beginning of the match and try to stay with him.  He put a little bit too much pressure for me to win the first service game and to be able to stay with him in the match. That was the goal. Because eventually he will give you a few easy points where you can just resolve them and just maybe to push him maybe to go to the net, or he will miss it.

"But 6-3 for the beginning, just a little bit, A lot of dis-advantage for me to play, and play to win.  And then, of course in the tiebreak, the first point was a terrible mistake from the middle of the court.  You can't miss these shots (Safin drove a set-up backhand into the net-tape, off a weak service return)  against these kind of players. That's what makes a huge difference. When you have a chance you need to go for it.  Everybody makes the same mistakes, everybody except Nadal. That's what makes the difference between Federer and the rest of the players.

Although Safin often does a pretty good job disguising it, he's got a keen mind. He made an observation about Federer that sheds light on some of the seeemingly little thing that champions do, often to the end of making a big difference in a close match. A reporter noted that Safin could have played better when he had two break points in the fourth game of the second set - a time in the match when a break might have made a significant difference. Safin explained:

Maybe, but I didn't expect he was going to serve twice exactly right into my body.  I had to attack it.  Because two times he just served perfectly to the body.  Normally the person doesn't do it.

Then I tried to stay back and he just saw it and then he placed the ball, kick wide. So he was great at the breakpoint.  He didn't even give me a chance. But I should have done better, that's for sure. Like I said, that's what makes the big difference between us and him.

It was a nuanced observation, and it helps explain why Federer hasn't been sitting up nights, stressing out over the matches looming in the future. As Federer said of the recent past: "Yeah, I mean, pretty simple: I haven't had many problems whatsoever throughout The Championships. It's been, you know, a perfect way to the finals, but there's one more left. You know, I need to win to get it. But so far it's been quite unbelievable, actually."

"Unbelievable" was a strange word to choose, given what Federer has been doing at Wimbledon for a few years now; if anything, this years has seemed like business as usual, despite all the weeping and gnashing of teeth that has been preceded these calm days in London.

Rafael Nadal has his work cut out for him.

PS - For those of you interested ESPN had me do video previews of the two finals.

We're again up to 1000+ comments on the earlier Crisis Center post, so please feel free to continue the day's conversations here. The much-anticipated (or dreaded, depending on your point of view) men's final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will take place on Sunday, weather permitting, after Roger Federer defeated Marat Safin 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 in the first semifinal, and Rafael Nadal came through against Rainer Schuettler, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4. For whatever it's worth, a quick glance at today's match statistics shows that Federer served 14 aces, won 4 of 11 net approaches, and committed 14 unforced errors. Nadal, meanwhile, served 7 aces, won 12 of 14 net approaches, and committed 18 unforced errors.

Meanwhile, there's a mixed doubles match going on on Centre Court. Will Jamie Murray reach his second Wimbledon final (along with Liezel Huber)? Or will there be two Bryan brothers in the final, on opposite sides of the net?

-- Rosangel Valenti

By Rosangel Valenti, TW Contributing Editor

Good morning. Today we await the semifinals of the Gentlemen's Singles at Wimbledon. As always, please treat this as your place to gather and discuss the day's tennis-related activities, or to match-call. It would be appreciated if you could keep the subject of discusion on tennis until the day's matches are completed - afterwards, it's OK to go off-topic here.

Daily Weather Report:

A few miles outside Wimbledon, I've been out and about today, and it's a bright day, fairly warm, with just a hint of a breeze, and probably 50% cloud cover.

Today in Wimbledon itself, a dry day is expected, with some sunny spells. In the evening, there's a possibility of some rain. Tomorrow's forecast suggests that although there is likely to be rain, much of it could come in the morning, and any showers during the afternoon are unlikely to be severely disruptive. The news for Sunday is less good - plenty of showers, and the possibility of prolonged rain in the afternoon.

Player of the Day:

Rainer Schuettler, for emerging the victor in one of the longest matches seen at Wimbledon (and certainly the longest we've seen this year). At the age of 32, he's reached his first Wimbledon semifinal - he's never been beyond the fourth round in nine earlier attempts. This is his best Slam performance since 2003, when he reached the final in Australia, and the fourth round in the other three Slams.

Match of the Day:

First up on Centre Court - Roger Federer versus Marat Safin. Federer lleads this head-to-head 8-2Both previous meetings on grass were won by Federer - on his way to the Wimbledon title in the third round last year, and in the Halle final in 2005, when Safin was able to take a set. Their meeting at the Australian Open, earlier in 2005, was of course won by the eventual Champion there, Safin.

Some Statistics:

Looking at yesterday's Crisis Center thread and the discussions there, I felt moved to calculate how well Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have been doing in terms of ease of winning over their opponents this year. Obviously this exercise is largely for "fun" - I'm not seriously suggesting that it takes into account all possible variables, such as their respective methods of winning points, difficulty of the matchups against various opponents for either player, or the importance of serving versus return statistics.

For what it's worth, both Federer and Nadal have, so far, each won 57.5% of points that they have played at Wimbledon this year, which I think in terms of Andrew's terminology indicates that they are both averaging a "clean kill" in each match. Nadal has played 936 points; Federer 858 points. Federer has won in straight sets each time; Nadal lost one set. Federer has played (and won) two tiebreaks; Nadal three. Federer has played 142 games, and won 65% of them; Nadal has played 157 games, and won 62% of them. So, on the bare statistics, there's little reason for gloom for the fans of either player - clearly, both are playing well.

As always, enjoy today's tennis.

Well, a match that few pundits might have predicted two weeks ago - a Venus and Serena Williams singles final at Wimbledon - is on deck for Saturday. I've posted some thoughts on that over at ESPN; the post should be live soon. I mention there that I'm pretty tired of what has by now become an institutionalized complaint - that the Williams sisters can't or won't produce a competitive final. But the use-by date on that idea has expired, and it's hard to defend it if you've been paying attention.

Venus and Serena have matured to the point where they understand each other - and themselves - suffficiently, and come to grips with the relative importance (or lack thereof) of the game as a source of identity and self-image. This hardly represents a sea change or seismic shift of attitude. Mostly, it represents growing up, recognizing what tennis can - and can't - do for you. But leaving the armchair psychology aside, I also took a quick look at their record to see what it suggests about the quality of the matches they play against each other.

Let's start with this: Expecting the Williams sisters to play epic matches against each other because they're top players as well sisters is just as futile as expecting them to produce lousy matches. I think a lot of the criticism of how the Williams sisters have performed against each other has not been driven entirely by cynical or nasty impulses, but by an underlying respect for their  games. The unconscious assumption is  that the girls are so good - so special - that they have not just the ability but perhaps the obligation to bring us a stream of 7-6 (18-16)-in-the-third results.

But leaving all armchair psychology aside, that's an unrealistic expectation based on the statistics. For the record, out of the 15 matches they've played, 5 have gone to three sets (a .333 percentage). I took a quick look at finals over the last 15 years, and found that over that time, the U.S. Open has produced just two three-set singles finals. the Australian Open has had only four. Roland Garros is 6 for 15 in three-set singles finals (just one better) and Wimbledon has produced the highest percentage of three-set finals (8 of 15) in that period. By the way, feel free to fact check me on this (I've always been lousy with numbers).

So, unless you believe that going three sets is some elaborate scheme by the Williamses to make some matches between them look more competitive than they are, the results are pretty much in the statistical mainstream. Yet some pundits and fans insist on cooking up conspiracy theories (or trying to goad players into doing their dirty work) as a prelude to Venus and Serena matches.  Yesterday, we had another episode, after Elena Dementieva phrased a reply curiously in this exchange:

Q: If it's an all-Willias final, how do you see it?

A: I mean, if they're going to play each other, I mean, I don't know what to say. I mean, I cannot imagine myself playing against someone from my family. It's really hard. For sure it's going to be a family decision.

When Venus Williams came to do press, Bill Simons of Inside Tennis asked a question in which he said that Dementieva said that the "outcome of the final would be a result of a family decision." To which Venus replied:

"Well, the main thing is that I find the question pretty offensive because I'm extremely professional in everything that I do on and off the court. I contribute my best in my sport, and I also have a ton of respect for myself and my family. So any mentnion of that is extremely disrespectful for who I am, what I stand for, and my family. That's pretty much how I feel about the whole subject."

At that point, Michelle Kaufman of the Miami Herald intervened to say that Simons "had it wrong", in terms of what Elena was trying to say - pointing out that her phrasing was a language issue. That pretty much nipped the controversy in the bud. A short while later, Dementieva issued this statement to the press:

English is not my first language and I apologize for not speaking it better. I do not think for one second that matches between Serena and Venus are "family decision" (my quotation marks). What i meant was it is a unique situation for a family to be in to be playing for a Grand Slam title. I cannot imagine what it must be like. I have a lot of respect for Serena and Venus, they are extremely professional in everyting they do and have done so much for the sport. if they do play each other in the final, i expect a very tough match as they are two of the biggest fighters in the game.

I wasn't present in the interview room, so all I have to go on is second-hand reports and the transcriptis. While Dementieva's phrasing was indeed curious, her remarks about the sisters were uniformly flattering. I debated whether or not I ought to even write this post, knowing the extent to which Venus and Serena - and particularly this issue - inflames passions. But i figured you ought to know, and probably want to know. However, I'm not accepting Comments at this post, and I'd prefer that everyone - including the Mod Squad - enjoy the men's semifinals. No need to chase our tails - or each others' - on this one.

By Heidi Kim, TW Contributing Writer

Hi TW!  I'm not back in Chicago yet, but at least back in the country from some more European travels.  Let's cut to the important stuff: I queued for Wimbledon on Monday and had a great time in the evening, watching some doubles and then finished off the evening crowded onto Henman Hill (which it will always be to me, regardless of how often they call it Murray Mount) to watch Murray-Gasquet.  Great atmosphere in the fading light, hill packed like you wouldn't believe.

I will have a full tale of my queuing experience next week, but this week I wanted to mention those unsung doubles matches, the saviors of the late-entering ground pass holders.  I got to see Bob Bryan and Samantha Stosur take out Kerr/Bondarenko in the second round of mixed doubles, looking very sharp and great on the teamwork.  Stosur had a lot of fans in the crowd, shouting "Sam!" in between points and snapping photos incessantly (of which I have some myself but can't post right now, sorry).

Afterwards, Verdasco/Lopez gave the walkover after their epic singles battles to Bjorkman/Ullyett, so we got the ladies' doubles of Sania Mirza and Bethanie Mattek against Akgul Amanmuradova and Darya Kustova, who I freely admit I had never heard of before.  Amanmuradova is a very tall, muscular girl, while her partner looks relatively small and slender -- but no smaller than Mirza and Mattek, who are almost perfectly matched in size and visors.  The match was delayed briefly when Amanmuradova was sent off to change her shirt; the collared shirt she had come on wearing had a huge 77 or something of the kind splashed over one shoulder in black, and apparently it was not good enough for the 'predominantly white' rule. 

Mirza and Mattek really did not play well to begin; actually, Mattek impressed me much more than Mirza, who got very negative about some (as she thought) questionable line calls, including one chair overrule on the sideline, and wasn't hitting particularly well.  Still, they were gaining momentum in the third set, and I thought they would win.  Amanmuradova, who had been getting medical treatment on her back, had to pull out, however, so they got the win that way.  Mirza was the fan favorite in this match, with a large number of ethnic Indians (from Britain or elsewhere, don't know) in the audience cheering her on or peering through the barriers to snap photos.

They went down to the Williams sisters, so they're out now, and Bryan/Stosur will have played their match today by the time this post goes up.  It was great to get to see some doubles, because it's so hard when you've grown up watching tennis on TV to know just how skilled these players are and how different doubles can be as a sport.  I also kept a vigilant eye on the scoreboard across the way, where Safin took down Wawrinka, and listened to the cheers coming from Henman Hill (which told me every time Murray took a set).

Court 18, by the way, is easily accessible by foot as opposed to helicopter, and it's not recreational-park style; there is a TV booth, as the Wimbledon organizers have protested vigorously.  Pretty good stands on one baseline and risers on each sideline -- but it doesn't compare to the big courts, of course.
Hope you're all enjoying the tournament!  Don't forget to keep sending me news and photos.