In Israel, a land attuned to the ancient texts of the world’s monotheistic faiths, the words “my cup overflows” possess a considerable amount of historical weight and meaning. That phrasing comes from scripture, of course–it’s no small thing in the Holy Land to encounter a lavish and abundant blessing.

Now, 108 years after the Davis Cup began, tennis fans in Israel can celebrate along with their racket-wielding heroes.

Yes, the party is on in Tel Aviv. On a weekend that saw Spain, the Czech Republic, and Croatia win their quarterfinal ties, it was the Israeli Davis Cup team that stole the show. Carried by unlikely heroes–in the spirit of this electrifying international event–Israel filled its cup and then some, defeating Russia, 4-1, to claim the first semifinal berth in the nation’s tennis existence.

Ever heard of the name Harel Levy? Only if you’re a true tennis diehard. Levy carried an ATP Tour singles record of 58-87, plus a world ranking of 210, into this weekend’s tie at Nokia Arena in Tel Aviv. Never able to get past the second round of a Grand Slam singles event, Levy figured to be relatively easy pickings for Russia’s Igor Andreev, a solid top-30 player with a punishing forehand. Levy, however, had a surprise in store for his Russian guest.

Inspired by a fervent home crowd and motivated to win for his country, Levy–doing what other modest pros such as Guy Forget (France, 1991) and Magnus Larsson (Sweden, 1994) managed to achieve in prior years–carried his underdog nation in a Davis Cup tie. Levy’s four-set win over Andreev, in the first rubber of the quarterfinal clash, immediately changed the tone of the tussle between one nation that had never made a deep run in Davis Cup (Israel) and the country that had won two Cups in the past seven years while also reaching the final in another (Russia). With momentum fully on the side of the Israelis on friendly indoor-carpet turf, Levy’s more accomplished partner, world No. 33 Dudi Sela, thumped Mikhail Youzhny in four more sets to give the hosts a 2-0 lead after Friday’s first session. Israel stood one point from the finish line, but that gleaming goal felt a million miles away, given the frailty of the larger situation.

On Saturday, the calculus shifted. Instead of playing merely to stay alive, the Israelis had a chance to clinch the tie with their standout doubles team of Andy Ram and Jonathan Ehrlich. Doubles might provide just one of the four available points in Davis Cup duels, but in light of the relative weakness of his singles players (never mind the aberration of Friday’s opening matches), Israeli team captain Eyal Ran had to be hoping, with all his might, that his doubles team could remove any and all suspense from Sunday’s second pair of singles rubbers. On one hand, Israel had to love its chances with Ram and Ehrlich on the prowl. Then again, an upset loss would have put the Russians back in a fairly favorable position for Sunday. Rarely has a Davis Cup participant faced such pressure while owning a two-rubber lead in the best-of-five-rubber tournament format.

It took awhile, mind you, for Ram and Ehrlich to put all the pieces together, but for a nation that had never tasted the sweetness of a Davis Cup semifinal, no one in Tel Aviv was complaining.

Ram and Ehrlich–clearly nervous in the face of their grand opportunity–blew a two-set lead but rallied to recover on Saturday. The tandem broke Marat Safin’s serve in the tenth game of the fifth set to beat Safin and partner Igor Kunitsyn, locking up the third and deciding point of the tie. The crowd inside Nokia Arena went bonkers, as did a bunch of tennis lifers who delivered the greatest and most meaningful performance they’ll ever produce between the painted white lines.

Sure, Israel will be a huge underdog heading into Sept. 18′s semifinals at defending champion Spain. Know something else? No one will care. Another nation can now sing of a semifinal showing in Davis Cup play.

The cup that is full of joy and laughter will be overflowing with choice beverages tonight and for weeks to come. Israel has arrived, and the Davis Cup party is richer as a result.

DAVIS CUP QUARTERFINAL SCOREBOARD

NOTE: Results exclude specific scores of dead rubbers

Israel d. Russia, 4-1 (Tel Aviv, Israel)

Harel Levy (ISR) d. Igor Andreev (RUS), 6-4, 6-2, 4-6, 6-2

Dudi Sela (ISR) d. Mikhail Youzhny (RUS), 3-6, 6-1, 6-0, 7-5

Jonathan Ehrlich and Andy Ram (ISR) d. Igor Kunitsyn and Marat Safin (RUS), 6-3, 6-4, 6-7 (3), 4-6, 6-4

Israel clinches tie, 3-0, before Sunday’s dead singles rubbers

Spain d. Germany, 3-2 (Marbella, Spain)

Fernando Verdasco (ESP) d. Andreas Beck (GER), 6-0, 3-6, 6-7 (4), 6-2, 6-1

Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) d. Tommy Robredo (ESP), 6-3, 6-4, 6-4

Feliciano Lopez and Fernando Verdasco (ESP) d. Nicolas Kiefer and Mischa Zverev (GER), 6-3, 7-6 (1), 6-7 (6), 6-3

Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) d. Fernando Verdasco (ESP), 6-4, 6-2, 1-6, 2-6, 8-6

Juan Carlos Ferrero (ESP) d. Andreas Beck (GER), 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 (fifth and deciding rubber)

Czech Republic d. Argentina, 3-2 (Ostrava, Czech Republic)

Tomas Berdych (CZE) d. Juan Monaco (ARG), 6-4, 2-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2

Juan Martin del Potro (ARG) d. Ivo Minar (CZE), 6-1, 6-3, 6-3

Tomas Berdych and Radek Stepanek (CZE) d. Jose Acasuso and Leonardo Mayer (ARG), 6-1, 6-4, 6-3

Juan Martin del Potro (ARG) d. Tomas Berdych (CZE), 6-4, 6-4, 6-4

Radek Stepanek (CZE) d. Juan Monaco (ARG), 7-6 (5), 6-3, 6-2 (fifth and deciding rubber)

Croatia d. United States, 3-2 (Porec, Croatia)

Ivo Karlovic (CRO) d. James Blake (USA), 6-7 (5), 4-6, 6-3, 7-6 (3), 7-5

Marin Cilic (CRO) d. Mardy Fish (USA), 4-6, 6-3, 6-7 (3), 6-1, 8-6

Bob and Mike Bryan (USA) d. Roko Karanusic and Lovro Zovko (CRO), 6-3, 6-1, 6-3

Marin Cilic (CRO) d. James Blake (USA), 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 6-2

Croatia clinches tie, 3-1; dead fifth rubber won by United States

UPCOMING DAVIS CUP SCHEDULE

SEMIFINALS – September 18-20

Israel at Spain

Czech Republic at Croatia

Sixteen long years after having her career derailed, a renewed Monica Seles found reason to celebrate once again.

The 35-year-old–for reasons beyond her control–could not become the single most accomplished champion in the history of women’s tennis, but the nine-time major champion richly deserved to be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. After Saturday afternoon’s ceremony in Newport, R.I., this Yugoslavian-born phenom, now an American citizen, joined the ranks of her sport’s legends. In so doing, Seles bound together the joys and sorrows that have marked a tumultuous yet deeply meaningful journey. A young woman ambushed by the trauma of a savage attack has now become a grown woman with a fuller understanding of life… and a piece of tennis immortality.

In many ways, this Hall of Fame moment offers Seles the chance to close the book on her young adult life, or more literally, to write a book. Seles is using this Hall of Fame honor to promote a new book, Getting a Grip: On My Mind, My Body, My Self. The text–much like Saturday’s grand occasion in Newport–serves to encapsulate the ups and downs of a life that, once seemingly destined to rise to the very top of women’s tennis, took multiple turns for the worse before stabilizing in recent years. It’s taken a long time for Seles to accept the unwanted path she’s traveled, but the combination of the Hall of Fame and her autobiography reveal a soul that has mended much of what ailed her over the past 16 years.

The day that the darkness first rolled into Monica Seles’s life was April 30, 1993. On that sunny afternoon in Hamburg, Germany, a black thundercloud of a man named Gunther Parche somehow breached security (much as the thrill-seeking “Jimmy Jump” managed to not only get on court, but touch Roger Federer, in the recent French Open men’s singles final) and stabbed Seles in the back. The experience was frightening for a woman just 19 years old at the time, and the pain of the knife was acute as it dug into the flesh of the best female tennis player on the planet. Yet, for all the searing agony of the actual attack, the true demon enmeshed in that act of insanity (Parche plainly viewed himself as a huge fan of Seles’s main rival, Steffi Graf; that the attack occurred in Graf’s native Germany only added to the ugliness of the incident) was the lingering fear of stepping onto a court.

It took two and a half years for Seles to come back to the WTA Tour. True, a woman of just 21 years of age was still able to rediscover her trademark groundstrokes–which had already authored eight wins in Grand Slam tournaments before the stabbing–but for a fierce on-court competitor, the psychology of sports had become something altogether different from what she had known and loved. Seles would reach the final of the 1995 U.S. Open (losing to Graf in three sets) and then win the 1996 Australian Open for her ninth major crown, but as time passed in the second half of the 1990s, it became clear that Seles lacked the steely and ruthless consistency that brought her to the top of the women’s game. The same person who–as a 17-year-old–memorably outlasted Jennifer Capriati in a spellbinding 1991 U.S. Open semifinal (7-6 in the third and final set, after roughly three hours of the best ballstriking ever seen from two mid-teen competitors) was now a slower, more uncertain version of her old, dominating self. While she was still able to rack up a lot of quarterfinal and semifinal showings at the biggest events on the tennis calendar, Seles was no longer the force that chewed up the WTA Tour in the early ’90s, winning three straight Aussies (1991-’93), three straight Frenches (1990-’92), and two straight U.S. Opens (1991-’92). Eating up majors left and right, Seles was quickly compiling a career trajectory that would have enabled the Yugoslavian to exceed 20 Grand Slam championships, and challenge Margaret Smith Court (24 major singles titles) for first on the all-time list. But when Gunther Parche unleashed the forces of hell in Hamburg (thanks in part to the incompetence of lax security forces), that race to the top of women’s tennis came to an abrupt halt. When one then considers the additional pain Seles endured when her beloved father-coach, Karolj, died in 1998, it’s even easier to understand why Monica couldn’t muster the magic in the latter stages of her career. In many ways, it’s patently unfair to say that Seles won “only” nine slam titles. Given the wrenching and heartbreaking events that hijacked her sense of peace (and led her to engage in binge eating, a dark period discussed in her book), it’s so gratifying and edifying to see Seles–now in her mid-thirties and no longer in need of winning tennis matches–moving on with her life and looking forward to new joys in adulthood.

Tennis’s Hall of Fame is noted for its continuously controversial admissions standards. Relatively unaccomplished singles players (think Jana Novotna) have been able to earn a ticket inside the Hall of Fame’s gates. In Monica Seles’s case, however, the “what might have been?” clouds hanging over her career were never going to prevent this resilient woman from attaining the recognition she so deeply and richly deserved.

Monica Seles has been through hell and back. Saturday–and for all time, too–a monument to true tennis excellence received what was duly hers, in many more ways than one.

As the tragic news of professional tennis player Mathieu Montcourt’s death circulates, his as of yet unexplained death unearths a certain shameful side to the modern world of tennis.

Montcourt’s body was found in his Paris apartment on Monday by his girlfriend and an autopsy is expected to be carried out as soon as possible. The death has shocked the tennis world just days after yet another successful Wimbledon tournament.

The loss is significant to the game and comes with deep regret that the player, who was only 24, never had the chance to fully redeem himself after accusations of forming irregular betting patterns by placing large sums of money on tennis matches.

Professionals are forbidden from betting on matches and while Montcourt never punted on his own outcomes, he was widely believed to have influenced a number of outcomes during June and September of 2005.

In 2008, he was fined £7,500 ($12,000) and suspended for 8 weeks by the ATP for his suspect betting history. The Frenchman returned to the game eager to rectify his torn reputation and looked to be doing so as by June of this year he had achieved his highest career ranking of 104 after reaching the second round at the French Open.

Sadly, that was as much as this young man was able to do before his untimely death. Moncourt mainly played in the circuit’s challenger events but was a regular on the ATP tour, and it is unfortunate that his death is likely to reemerge talk of gambling in tennis.

With Moncourt’s mistakes plus the case of Latvian player Irakli Labadze and gambler Martin Fuhrer put to rest in recent years, authorities were foolish to believe that the problem was eradicated.

Throughout this years Wimbledon tournament, certain inconsistencies were apparent with scoreboards both on the BBC’s television coverage and several well-respected sports websites.

Constant delays in updates of points and games won were seen on broadcasters’ scoreboards day in day out on even the most obscure games on SW19. It may not seem like a big problem, but in-play betting in tennis has become a phenomenon in recent months, especially in Britain were Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam shown on terrestrial television.

Thus, punters rely on internet scoreboards and the more trustworthy one on live BBC television coverage as in-play odds change constantly on online gambling websites with every point won. The theory behind the noticeable irregular score summaries is that scoreboard operators are being given backhanders for stalling their updates so punters can have time to place a bet before bookies have time to alter their odds.

For instance, a tie break in the first set of a match will have odds of the match winner yo-yoing as the players battle it out for the first set advantage. Punters can have eye witnesses courtside and on the phone giving immediate updates while bookkeepers heavily rely on the media’s coverage for updates, and with scoreboard operators delaying their duties with brass in pocket, a bet can be placed before the bookies even know of any change in score.

The theory opens up a whole new conspiracy towards gambling in tennis. Respected British newspaper The Guardian revealed before Wimbledon that the ATP were monitoring “six to twelve” players as match-fixing suspects throughout the tournament, whether irregularities were found from those unnamed players remains to be seen.

However, the latest craze of in-play gambling may force the ATP to turn their attentions to other areas of gambling in tennis as the US Open draws near. Many critics feel grunting is the biggest problem in the modern game, I for one feel punting poses a much greater threat.

Roger Federer needed 16 games in the fifth and deciding set to win his 15th major tournament.

Such a poetically appropriate detail helps explain how a legendary athlete became even more of an icon on Sunday evening at Wimbledon, and yet, in the aftermath of another classic gentlemen’s singles final at the Big W, that numerical twist can’t even begin to convey the full measure of the 4-hour, 17-minute epic that unfolded on the world’s most famous tennis court.

In a narrowly-confined sense, Federer merely did what nearly everyone expected him to do against Andy Roddick: Win, and claim sole possession of the record for singles titles at major championships, leaving Pete Sampras–a late-arriving attendee in the Royal Box–alone in second place. Yet, a more expansive view of Sunday’s scintillating showstopper can’t adequately contain all the narratives and emotions that poured forth from another fabulous final at SW19.

Federer might have been the official winner in a 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14 marathon against Roddick, but the aftermath of the match was dominated not so much by celebrations of the Swiss’s long-awaited achievement as it was by a recognition of the American underdog’s mighty effort… and overwhelming heartbreak.

Federer will not find it a problem to bathe in another ocean of accolades, congratulations, British pounds (850,000 of them), and signs around the All-England Club recognizing his 2009 victory at The Championships. Pundits and fans have found it very easy to praise the 27-year-old giant who just elevated his status to an even greater degree in the annals of men’s tennis. As he prepares to welcome his first child into the world with wife Mirka this summer, Roger will be well Fed and comforted in many more ways than one.

The man who made this moment was Roddick, a tireless and always-sincere competitor who played the best match of his life–even better than against Andy Murray in Friday’s semifinals–yet still lost. The American’s fate is oh-so-similar to what Elena Dementieva experienced in her Thursday loss to Serena Williams in the ladies’ singles semis: A max-out performance of epic proportions was somehow, someway, not rewarded with a breakthrough result. Roddick does have a major to his credit (the 2003 U.S. Open), but the 26-year-old who has long hungered for Wimbledon will improbably have to wait another year for his day in the sunshine of victory.

It can’t be said any more plainly than this: Roddick played like a Wimbledon champion on Sunday. The No. 6 seed outplayed the second-seeded Federer, making fewer unforced errors (33 to 38) while–in an interesting case of role reversal–providing a steadier brand of backcourt play and a generally superior passing shot. Federer typically bosses Roddick around the court–that’s how the Swiss accumulated an 18-2 head-to-head record in 20 prior meetings–but in this match, Roddick’s retooled game, molded into stern and steely stuff by new coach Larry Stefanki, gave Federer fewer looks at easy winners. Roddick’s massively improved two-handed backhand attained considerably greater depth, while the American’s forehand drove through the court and repeatedly surprised the Swiss. No longer pushing the ball as he had in past encounters with Fed, Roddick varied his angle of attack to get a decorated champion off balance behind the baseline.

How, then, did Roddick not manage to translate his excellence into a win against a more frail form of Federer, who didn’t possess his customary zing on his groundstrokes?

By losing a handful of very precious points, that’s how.

Grass-court tennis, more than the clay or hardcourt forms of the sport, demands an ability to win the small but significant points that matter more than most. The uneven bounces created by the organic playing surface, plus the low, skidding action of the ball as it rubs off on the blades of grass, simply make it that much more difficult to break serve on the green stuff. This year, the lawns of Wimbledon played quicker than they had in prior years, and as a result, more matches acquired the shape and texture of a traditional grass-court match: namely, a serve-fest defined by tiebreakers and break-point conversions in which chances for glory come and go very quickly.

Roddick did break Federer to win the first and fourth sets, but the American might have been lifting his first Wimbledon trophy had he been able to convert just one point in the second set.

It’s hard to think of a bigger tiebreak than a second-set tiebreak; either the leader in the match takes a two-set lead, or the trailer in the match evens the score at a set apiece. Roddick, having taken the opening stanza, roared to a 6-2 lead in the second-set tiebreak before Federer–with a flick backhand on Roddick’s serve and then two powerful serves of his own–erased three set points in succession. Roddick would have preferred to own two serves at 6-3 in that tiebreak, but after Fed held his two-serve sequence to get to 6-5, Roddick still enjoyed a position he could only have dreamed about before Sunday’s match began: One serve, in his hands, on his racket, for a two-set lead against a five-time Wimbledon champion. Much as hard-serving Ivo Karlovic rolled to the quarterfinals at this event by getting into tiebreaks and then laying down the hammer with his serve, Roddick similarly had Federer on the ropes. One ace or service winner, and the loser of the 2004 and 2005 finals to Federer would gain sweet revenge in 2009.

Oh, but Roddick couldn’t deliver the thumper he so badly needed, and then–after playing a pretty good point off a second ball–the underdog, for the only time in the match, cracked under pressure. He had a high backhand volley to the open court, the second set waiting to be won, but the shot sailed wide. A perfect opportunity–the chance of a lifetime–had gone by the boards for the man who wanted Wimbledon so desperately.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Federer–saver of four set points in a row–breathed easier once he climbed to 6-all in the tiebreak. The Swiss used a passing shot and a steady hand from the backcourt to claim the next two points and even the match in the process. These two skilled stick-wielders fashioned a fifth set for the ages, but if Roddick had converted the 6-5 point in the second-set breaker, a packed Centre Court crowd might never have seen the special spectacle.

There were two other points–yes, just two of them; tennis is that cruel–Roddick failed to win on Sunday, but in this instance, the American could do precious little about the outcome. Whereas the 6-5 point in the second-set breaker was donated by a Roddick error, Federer prevented his feisty foe from having a say in the matter as the fifth set just kept continuing. At 8-all, Roddick’s backcourt game and passing shot arsenal created a 15-40 advantage and two break points that put the sixth seed on the verge of serving for the championship. Federer, though, displaying the composure of the champion he is, hammered an ace and then a serve-swinging volley combo to swat away the two break chances. In an ice-veins display oh-so-similar to the 2007 Wimbledon final against Rafael Nadal (Fed saved 15-40 at both 1-all and 2-all in the fifth set en route to victory over Rafa two years ago), Fed looked death in the eye and prevailed. So strong was Federer on serve that he never faced a break point in his other 14 (yes, that’s not a typo) fifth-set service games. Roddick wasn’t too shabby, either, allowing just two break points of his own in 15 service games. With both players shrugging off the occasional mis-hit or bad bounce, the final and deciding stanza carried on into its 30th game. But as shadows began to engulf Centre Court, the knowledge of his escape at 8-all had to lift Federer’s confidence.

That small but meaningful measure of additional belief would finally enter the foray with Roddick serving to stay in the match (for the 11th time, one should add) at 14-15.

Having played so well for so long, Roddick–due to losing three key points out of the 428 that were played up to that moment–still trailed on a day when his effort should have been sufficient to land him in the locker room as a gleeful Wimbledon champion. But because he couldn’t snare each and every opportunity that came his way, Roddick had to toe the service line to remain on court a little while longer.

But after 428 points, it would soon be clear that in the final eight points of the day, Roddick’s tank just ran out of fuel.

The American’s legs simply lost their juice in the 30th game of the longest fifth set in the history of any major championship. The longest Wimbledon final in terms of games played (77) finally ended because Roddick began to cough up the errors he had minimized for the previous four-plus hours. Big serves got Roddick out of a love-30 deficit and offered the American a game point at 40-30, but with his first serve unable to close the deal, a still-fresh Federer played percentage tennis and waited out Roddick long enough to draw shanked shots from the tiring man from Texas. When Federer got his first championship point–only his second break point of a marathon set–Roddick was not able to keep the ball in the court. A framed forehand sailed well beyond the playing surface, and Federer–despite operating at a level well below his best–had found the fortitude to gut out his sixth Wimbledon title, but more importantly, his 15th major crown.

This match–given the bewildering, beautiful, ballsy nature of its sprawling, sweeping fifth-set finale–did not deserve to have a loser, but competitive athletics inevitably must. Roger Federer won this Wimbledon title, but the cruel and heartless aspect of this titanic tennis tilt was that Andy Roddick, never better in his life, was still consigned to second place.

Federer was muted and modest in post-match celebrations and press conferences. That’s entirely appropriate given the heart–and heartbreak–which colored Andy Roddick’s performance on a golden day in England. It’s ironic that Federer’s march to “15″ became so subdued at the end, but a drained and dejected American athlete deserves to be paid such respect after another stomach-punch loss he frankly didn’t deserve.

For the past two years and three of the last four, Centre Court was Venus Williams‘s personal summer cottage. Now, another member of the Williams household has claimed ownership of the most famous place in tennis.

Serena Williams had not won a ladies’ singles championship at the All-England Club since 2003, but this little sister now stands tall in suburban London once again after a Saturday smackdown of big sister Venus Williams. A tidy 7-6 (3), 6-2 win, attained in just 87 minutes, gives Serena her 11th Grand Slam crown, her third Wimbledon, and her third championship in the last four major tournaments. An already-decorated career just became that much more impressive, and there’s no better place to enhance a portfolio than at the most prestigious tournament on the planet.

This match might have paled in comparison to last year’s all-Williams final (won by Venus, 7-5, 6-4), but the high-stakes showdown provided yet one more glimpse at the source of Serena’s supremacy. Much as Elena Dementieva could not overcome her failure (not due to any great mistake, but a failure nonetheless) to claim a match point against Serena in Thursday’s spectacular semifinal, so it also was that Venus could not rebound from a blown opportunity against her little sister on the final Saturday of The Championships.

The biggest point of this match was not hard to identify, given the trajectory of the proceedings. Serena lost just eight points on serve, but three of those points came in the eighth game of the first set, with Serena serving at 3-4. Venus gained a 15-40 edge and, after losing one break point, gained the upper hand on the next. Serena, desperately trying to close the point at net on the ad side, was plainly out of position as Venus let loose a topspin forehand passing shot to a wide-open deuce court. Improbably, however, the ball sailed a few inches long. Venus bent over in frustration, knowing that on a day when service breaks would be hard to come by, she had just frittered away an easy chance to take a 5-3 lead and serve out the first set.

Serena Williams has made a career out of pouncing when opponents–even other family members–fail to put her away. Liberated by this escape–just as she flourished after dodging that one match point against Dementieva–Serena, at deuce, convincingly won the next two service points to hold for 4-all. After that portion of the proceedings, the second-seeded little sister conceded practically nothing to her third-seeded sibling. Serena would get into–and dominate–a first-set tiebreak with an overwhelming serve and a spot-on forehand that left Venus shaken and uncertain with her movement and footwork. In a very anticlimactic second set, Serena lost only two points–yes, two!–on her serve, coasting through a majority of games and then breaking for a 4-2 lead when Venus, sensing her impending demise, double-faulted. The rest was history–Wimbledon history–as Serena rolled to the finish line and, for the third time, claimed a piece of fine china named after her sister: The Venus Rosewater Dish.

Venus Williams has nothing to hang her head about: Five wins at the Big W puts the elder Williams sister in very lofty company, behind a few ladies named (Martina) Navratilova, (Helen Wills) Moody, (Steffi) Graf, (Suzanne) Lenglen, and (Billie Jean) King. Moreover, the 29-year-old’s only losses in Wimbledon finals have come against her sister, meaning that eight of the past 10 ladies’ singles champions at this hallowed event are linked to the Williams family name. Serena felt the bitter taste of defeat after  last year’s loss to Venus. After a flipping of the script in 2009, big sis can’t feel as though her Wimbledon career has been anything less than fully satisfying.

In the end, perhaps the notions of a new owner at Centre Court are overblown. Instead of saying that Serena has purchased a summer cottage from Venus, it might be better to say that the Williamses are having one big celebration in their comfortable English residence. There might be a different champion at the All-England Club this time around, but the household in control of these luscious lawns remains very much the same. Serena Williams will merely be able to enjoy her summer a little more than her sister will.

As Roger Federer and Andy Roddick meet once again at Wimbledon, two paths that meandered in such distinctly different directions have suddenly converged to create a rather remarkable backdrop to this year’s gentlemen’s singles final. When these familiar foes face each other on Sunday at Centre Court, they’ll find it impossible to ignore the match that shaped the prime years of their tennis-playing lives.

It’s true that Federer and Roddick played in the 2003 semifinals and the 2005 final at SW19, in two matches snatched by the Swiss in straight sets. Federer-Roddick used to be an annual event at Wimbledon before the Roger and Rafael Nadal Show came along in 2006. Yet, for all of their confrontations at the All-England Club, there’s zero question that a titanic tug-of-war in the 2004 Wimbledon final remains, even to this day, the most impactful match they shared on the same court.

Federer and Roddick have faced each other at every major tournament except the French Open, and in Roddick’s most recent slam final–at the 2006 U.S. Open–Federer was there to oppose his American rival. All those other meetings in other locales don’t carry much weight, however, when placed against the events of July 4, 2004, on the world’s most famous patch of grass.

Five years ago, Federer and Roddick loomed large as the two best players in tennis. Federer–the defending champion at SW19–had also won that year’s Australian Open, while Roddick was less than a year removed from his first major title at the 2003 U.S. Open. At a time when the French Open belonged only to dirtballing specialists (Gaston Gaudio and Guillermo Coria were rarely if ever heard from after they contested the 2004 French championship, won by Gaudio in five sets), Federer and Roddick were the kings of the fast surfaces which comprised three of the four majors. Seeded first and second at Wimbledon, the Swiss and the American raced toward the final Sunday of The Championships from opposite halves of the draw. Federer, not quite 23, seemed destined to win several slams before his career was through, while Roddick, just short of his 22nd birthday, appeared similarly primed for more Grand Slam glory after his victory in New York the year before. The buildup was high, the stakes considerable, the pressure on each man immense. And that was just the prelude.

When mortal combat actually began on Centre Court, the second-seeded Roddick served from a tree and bludgeoned the ball with his forehand. The American played power tennis to perfection, shortening points and blasting away before Federer could feel his way into rallies and find rhythm as a result. Depriving Federer of the tennis equivalent of oxygen, Roddick made sure his opponent couldn’t breathe. As a result of his simple but smart game plan, the American won the first set and–after Federer battled back to narrowly win the second–took a one-break lead over the top-seeded Swiss in the third.

Then, however, the fates intervened.

Anyone who followed men’s tennis before Rafael Nadal’s rise to prominence knows how the 2004 Wimbledon final turned on a dime. Before the classic 2008 final (between Nadal and Federer) that was delayed at the outset and then twice interrupted by rain, there was another gentlemen’s championship match that fell victim to the weather. With Roddick up 4-2 in the third set, rain began to fall on the grounds of the All-England Club. Roddick’s momentum was halted, while Fed was able to think about his tactics after the resumption of play. Sure enough, the pride of Switzerland was able to break Roddick shortly after the two men emerged from the locker room. With the third set back on serve, “The Artful Roger” was able to get into–and win–a tiebreak that took a lot of the air out of Roddick’s sails. Only a short while later, the world No. 1 was putting the finishing touches on a 4-6, 7-5, 7-6 (3), 6-4 victory.

The pundits and writers who watched the match knew that Federer received a stroke of good fortune, but they also noted that the Swiss–who did not have a coach at that point in his career–was smart enough to erase his third-set deficit by making the right adjustments. A potent poignancy characterized the post-match scene: Federer cried the way he so often does in a time of triumph, while Roddick–shocked by a loss on a day when he played so well–was left to wonder why the heavens opened up precisely when he had the top-ranked player in tennis on the run. Much could not be understood about the twists and turns of the 2004 Wimbledon final itself, but the lasting significance of the match proved far more elusive. The mystery of this momentous matchup would not be appreciated for a few more years.

Perhaps the 2004 tussle re-entered the minds of both men when Federer crushed Roddick in the 2005 final. Hitting 51 winners while conceding just 12 unforced errors, Federer flashed his vaunted “full-flight” game to deny Roddick any chance of creating a competitive match. The nearly flawless display gave credence to tennis observers who felt that the 2004 result gave Federer a forward push, injecting the Swiss machine with an even fuller tank of confidence. Yet, there was still a sense that Roddick–denied by a great player at Wimbledon–would still have his day in the sun.

That’s when Mr. Nadal entered the fray.

Despite his comparative lack of experience on grass, Nadal cherished Wimbledon more than any other tournament. Accordingly, the Spaniard’s hunger to succeed made itself manifest in a very short period of time. His legendary desire catapulted the 20-year-old to the 2006 final at Centre Court for a date with Federer. A loss in that match did absolutely nothing to dim Rafa’s resolve, and so it was that Nadal would swing the stick against the Swiss in 2007 and, of course, in the unforgettable 2008 epic that electrified the sports world. The truth was as painful as it was shocking for Andy Roddick: Despite his losses to Federer at Wimbledon, the American appeared to have more chances for championship riches, only to then witness Nadal steal the spotlight and become an unskakable, unbreakable force at No. 2 in the ATP rankings.

Anyone in professional tennis will tell you that the landscape shifts very quickly; Roddick, through little fault of his own, went from being a regular Wimbledon runner-up to a Grand Slam quarterfinalist. It’s not that Roddick declined; the harsh reality of the men’s game, circa 2006, was that Roger and Rafa were crowding almost everyone else out of the picture. In 2007 and early 2008, Novak Djokovic hit the big-time with an appearance in the U.S. Open final and the ’08 title in Australia. In the latter half of 2008, Andy Murray began to make his mark on tour with a Masters title in Cincinnati and a run to the U.S. Open final. Roddick, still trying to find his best tennis, possessed a work ethic worthy of his craft. The American, no longer the 21-year-old who fell to Federer in 2004, entered 2009 as a 26-year-old swimming in a sea of more talented sharks. In a few short years, the infusion of a few young studs–led by Nadal and then followed by the Djoker and Murray–severely reduced Roddick’s window of opportunity.

As for Federer? The Swiss–by the end of 2006–had become more than just “another great player.” With his second three-slam season but his first year of reaching all four major finals (with a 27-1 record, one win short of a calendar Grand Slam, which Rod Laver pulled off in both 1962 and ’69), the Swiss superstar entered especially elevated places in the tennis pantheon. If there was any doubt about the 2004 Wimbledon final’s effect on Fed’s career in 2005, the 2006 surge laid such questions to rest: Yes, that rain-aided escape against Andy Roddick really did open the floodgates to a career considered by many to be the greatest in the history of men’s tennis.

How fitting and fascinating it is, then, that five years after the match that did so much to alter the course of their journeys, Roger Federer and Andy Roddick meet again… at Wimbledon… in the final… with Nadal recuperating, Djokovic drifting, and Murray not yet ready to assume a mantel of Grand Slam greatness.

It’s time to party like it’s 2004, and if the underdog from the United States can make some magic against the 14-time Grand Slam champion, it will rank as one of the great comeback stories in the history of sports. Andy Roddick has had a good life in all respects, but if he can fell Roger Federer this one time, his current 2-18 record against the Swiss will cease to mean very much. Far more importantly, Roddick’s life on the court, between the painted white lines, will finally attain the completeness it’s been lacking for so many years… all because of that afternoon on July 4, 2004.

Time does stand still at Wimbledon, allowing the ghosts of the past to find cushy seats at Centre Court when champions are made and re-made. Sunday, those shadowy figures will loom over Andy Roddick’s shoulder. If the American can play the match of his life, he’ll never again be haunted by that day five years ago, when two careers began to acquire considerably divergent dimensions.

Dinara Safina’s 6-1, 6-0 loss to Venus Williams in Wimbledon’s easily-forgotten “other semifinal” might have taken only 50 minutes, but the impact of the event is still being felt throughout the WTA Tour.

The biggest story of this year’s ladies’ singles tournament at Wimbledon centered around the Williams sisters, back in the final of the world’s most prestigious event. The best match of The Championships jumped off the page, as Serena Williams’s heartstopping triumph over Elena Dementieva electrified women’s tennis at a point of low ebb for the sport. The loudest controversy of the fortnight–literally and figuratively–came from the lungs of 16-year-old Michelle Larcher de Brito, whose screaming during rallies sent the British tabloids into a publishing frenzy. But the most significant story of the tournament–the narrative that produced the kind of debate sports fans crave–emerged when Safina, still possessing that “(1)” next to her name on the draw sheet, claimed just one game and 20 total points (that’s right–just 20 total points in 13 games; you try winning a tennis match when you get roughly 1.5 points per game…) against an ascendant Venus on Centre Court. The fact that Safina still owned the world’s No. 1 ranking only made the reality of her lopsided defeat that much more embarrassing. The problem, though, lies not with Safina herself, but with the WTA’s ranking system. As the ladies’ tournament at Wimbledon comes to a close (at press time, the Williams sisters are beginning their much-anticipated singles final), it’s worth discussing the ins and outs of tennis rankings and the players caught up in such controversies.

It was striking to read the transcript of Venus Williams’s post-match press conference following her slaughter of Safina. Assembled journalists–understandably wanting to explore the incongruities inherent in a breadstick-and-bagel beatdown suffered by the world No. 1–pressed Venus about the legitimacy of Safina’s ranking, and what that meant for women’s tennis. The words themselves tell the story:

* * *

Q. This isn’t your fault obviously because you played really well, but it’s embarrassing for women’s tennis to see the No. 1 destroyed in that way, isn’t it?

VENUS WILLIAMS: Why do you put it like that?

Q. You played very well.

VENUS: Are you trying to be down on women’s tennis?

Q: I’m trying to be down on the way that Safina is the world No. 1 representing women’s tennis.

VENUS: So you’re trying to be down basically.

Q: Not on women’s tennis, no.

VENUS: Okay, because I don’t deal with down at all.

Q. It’s not down.

VENUS: I’m just making sure you’re not trying to be down, because I respect Dinara Safina immensely, and I think you should, too.

Q. I do. . .

VENUS: Thanks.

* * *

It was, on one hand, a joy to see Venus doing what any self-respecting women’s tennis player should have done: Defend Dinara Safina. That feeling, however, was tempered by the unfortunate realization that the questioner failed to make the right kind of inquiry.

An appropriate line of questioning would have involved a reference to the ranking system used by the WTA Tour, not any reference to the Safina’s deficiencies. Safina, it must be said, battled to the semis of Wimbledon–her best-ever showing at the tournament–despite a case of knee tendonitis and a succession of tough matches against inspired opponents. Safina trailed Amelie Mauresmo by a set and a break, and then found herself down 3-0 in the third and deciding set of Monday’s fourth-round match, but still fought through to the quarterfinals. In the round of eight, Safina’s serve could not be found, but the Russian still willed herself past Sabine Lisicki despite playing anything but her best tennis. Marat Safin‘s sister has been the most consistent week-in, week-out player on tour in 2009; the 23-year-old should be praised for what she achieved at Wimbledon.

Safina’s lopsided loss to Venus Williams should not have surprised anyone in the women’s tennis community. Venus, first of all, is a woman who loves grass as much as Safina hates it. Centre Court is Venus’s cozy summer cottage, while Safina despises the green stuff and the unreliable bounces it provides. Venus has won five times at SW19, and against an injured foe (never mind Venus’s own wrapped knees; they’ve plainly not limited her on-court movement this fortnight), she simply had every possible factor pointing in her direction. The matchup was a bad one to begin with for Safina; failing to do much against Venus Williams at Wimbledon is no sin at all. If journalists feel Dinara Safina is the problem in this episode, they have a horribly wrong-headed impression of the matter.

Indeed, the focus of the interviewers at Venus’s post-match presser should have zeroed in on a system that allows Safina to claim the No. 1 ranking without having won a single slam title. Safina didn’t make the WTA’s rules or procedures; she’s merely trying to play her best tennis. Yet, in this and previous tournaments (the Australian Open and the French Open), the Russian was pelted with questions about a ranking she inherited, not a ranking she lobbied for. It’s a blessing that rankings in tennis are not so much the result of politics as they are a reflection of numerical formulas otherwise known as point allotments. Tennis has always struggled (same with the men) in determining just how many points to offer for individual tournaments and 12-month periods of competition, and this latest dust-up involving a damsel named Dinara only shows that the sport still has to tweak its methods and maneuvers.

So let it be said, then: Why not insist on a simple set of changes that would immensely improve not just the rankings formula itself, but the public perception of the sport (especially as it rests in the hands of journalists who can quite easily miss the mark)?

A road to a better women’s tennis rankings list would involve these basic improvements:

1) The insertion of a provision requiring a world No. 1 to win a slam title.

2) If the No. 2 player lacks a slam title, make a determination about the point differential needed to allow the No. 3 or No. 4 player to rise to the No. 1 position.

Example: If player A has 9,800 points (as Safina does) and player B has 8,100 points (roughly Serena Williams’s total at the moment) but no slams, should player C, with a slam title to her name, be allowed to ascend to the No. 1 position with 7,200 points? One does have to admit that if a slam-less player is extremely consistent in all other tournaments on the tennis calendar, it is not terrifically easy to say that a less active player should be ranked No. 1, even if that less active player snaps up the slams. This has been the very dynamic that has encased the Williams sisters in recent years: Serena and Venus do not play a full calendar, but they wind up winning many of the year’s majors. Women’s tennis can’t idly watch as slam-less players gain the top ranking, but certain thresholds need to be established in order to give the rankings system credibility.

3) This is the easiest rule to add: If or when a slam-less player with the highest (12-month-based) point total finally wins a slam, that player should be immediately be promoted to the No. 1 ranking.

Yes, the formulation and implementation of a mutually satisfying plan for all female tennis pros would take some time, but in light of the unfortunate controversy surrounding Dinara Safina at this year’s Wimbledon, it’s high time the WTA does something to address the problem. Dinara Safina did what she could in suburban London this year, but journalists viewed her semifinal washout as her great disappointment, when all along, it was the WTA’s ranking system that truly cast a pall over the sport.

With a little care and forethought, future women’s tennis debates–about No. 1 and the health of the sport–can focus more on the results of tournaments, and less on rankings systems that make players the villains. Administrators are the real sources of the sour notes that continue to plague this sport. Safina should not have to be asked to defend a No. 1 ranking she didn’t really deserve, and Venus Williams should not have had to defend her fellow traveler on the WTA Tour.

For the fans who packed Centre Court and Henman Hill on Friday afternoon at the All-England Club, the wrong Andy won the second gentlemen’s singles semifinal at the 2009 Wimbledon Championships. Even then, however, the eyes of a commonwealth had to appreciate the power of the moment Andy Roddick created on the world’s most famous tennis court.

Playing nothing less than the best tennis match of a career rich in prize money but poor in terms of Grand Slam championships, the sixth-seeded Roddick came through in the clutch to oust third-seeded favorite Andy Murray in four riveting sets. The 6-4, 4-6, 7-6 (7), 7-6 (5) win catapults Roddick into Sunday’s final against second-seeded Roger Federer, while ending Murray’s bid to become the first British male to reach a Wimbledon final since Bunny Austin turned the trick in 1938.

Just how sweet is this breakthrough for Roddick? Words frankly can’t do justice to the magnitude of the American’s achievement, built on the back of ice-veins composure under pressure.

The most immediately satisfying aspect of this match for Roddick is that his tennis rose to sublime heights precisely when the former world No. 1 needed his best brand of ball. At love-40 in the first game of the third set, Roddick was about to cede scoreboard leverage and real-world momentum to Murray, who stormed back to win set two after dropping the opening stanza. However, the American–perhaps channeling Pete Sampras (whose record for slam singles titles is shared by Federer, and could be fully eclipsed on Sunday unless Roddick says otherwise)–climbed out of that ditch with uncommon resolve.

Sampras won seven Wimbledons by making the occasional well-timed escape from a love-40 hole in a late-tournament match. Today, Roddick turned that trick by hitting a tremendous backhand stab volley at 30-40 to level to deuce, and then smacking big serves to prevent Murray from working his way into rallies. Roddick would break Murray in the fourth game of the third set and eventually establish a 5-2 lead with rare touch and precision at net (the American won 48 points at net, converting a healthy 64 percent of all forays to the twine), but when serving for the set at 5-3, a loose and distracted game, combined with an inspired backhand passing shot from the Scotsman at love-30, enabled Murray to stay alive and eventually force a massive tiebreak.

No worries for Roddick–despite blowing a big lead, the sixth seed would rally, and again, his net play showed the way forward.

After Murray hit his third ace in as many service points to grab a set point in the breaker at 6-5, Roddick–on his own serve–saved his hide by executing a forehand drop volley that barely eluded Murray’s reach. After the two players traded service points for 7-all, a penetrating Roddick return of a Murray first serve drew an error from the third seed, and at 8-7, Roddick–armed with the mini-break–was able to serve for the set. The sixth seed didn’t waste his big chance–he used his serve to gain a territorial advantage on the point, which ended when a smart backhand approach forced Murray to attempt a high-risk forehand pass well behind the baseline. The Scotsman couldn’t find the range, and Roddick forged a two-sets-to-one lead. Steel nerves under fire had shepherded the 26-year-old through one towering trial.

In the fourth set, Roddick would call upon that resourcefulness once more, as another set careened toward the clamorous conclusion known as a tiebreak.

Locked yet again in an equally-weighted war (Roddick won 143 total points in this match, Murray 141; how’s that for a fair fight?), these two dandy Andys didn’t create much daylight between them. The difference between a fifth set and crushing heartbreak for all England would once again come down to two points out of the 284 that were played on Friday. As was the case in set three, Roddick would own that precious pair.

The first key point of the tiebreak emerged at 2-1 Roddick, when Murray–on serve–lost hold of a forehand that sailed long and gave the American a mini-break lead, which meant a lot given the way the rest of the fourth set proceeded. Roddick successfully hit 75 percent of his first serves, and in the crucible of a fourth-set breaker, the sixth seed soared on serve. Slamming an ace or a service winner on each of his first five service points, Roddick gained double match point at 6-4. It was only then that Roddick failed to put a first serve in the court, and Murray–much to his credit–took advantage of the second ball by ripping a terrific passing shot to get back on serve at 5-6. Roddick still had a match point, but his dogged opponent now had the next two serves on his racket. It would take something special for the American to win on the court that Tim Henman couldn’t quite master, and which Murray hoped to own come Sunday evening against Federer.

Speaking of Federer, that’s the player Roddick evoked with the way he played his second match point. On the 12th point of this terrific tiebreak–the point that would make all the difference in a match that was worthy of a Wimbledon semifinal–Roddick did what Federer had done to him so many times before.

In their 2003 Wimbledon semifinal, and then back-to-back meetings in the 2004 and 2005 finals of The Championships, Federer foiled Roddick with one play above all others: the blocked first-serve return. This is not a return that’s meant to produce a winner, nor is it a service return meant to generate any kind of power or spin. The blocked return is simply an attempt to retrieve a bullet-like serve far enough into the court to prevent the server from having an easy put-away on the follow-up shot. If a blocked service return lands anywhere near the baseline, the server–contemplating his next move–must decide whether to hit an overhead or a forehand. The overhead could finish the point, but it carries more risk. The forehand is a higher-percentage shot, but it is less likely to produce an outright winner. The blocked return, then, allows a service receiver to establish a somewhat neutral position despite a 130-mile-per-hour bomb delivered by the server. It’s not a sexy play, and it doesn’t show up in highlights or stat sheets, but the blocked return is a winning play on grass, and it enabled Federer to win those three straight Wimbledon matches over Roddick, on the way to singles titles in each of those three years (2003-’05).

Simply stated, this 5-6 point began with a huge Murray first serve to the ad court corner of the service box. Roddick is not known for his return game (much as he entered this match with a reputation as a mediocre net player), but on this one occasion, he managed to block back a return within three feet of the baseline. Murray–who would normally have won a point with the huge first serve he just thundered–instead had to play a medium-pace forehand that allowed Roddick to get into that all-important netural position. Just a few strokes later, Roddick worked his way to the net behind something solid, and when Murray couldn’t hit the passing shot, the upset had been completed in the most ironic of ways: Andy Roddick, so often the victim of a blocked return at the hands of Roger Federer, had advanced to another Wimbledon final against his Swiss nemesis by imitating Federer in the heat of competition.

Murray–who cracked 76 winners and committed just 20 unforced errors–will only lament his 52 percent first-serve conversion rate, the one stat that truly hampered the British hope more than anything else. Other than his balky serve, the world No. 3 could not argue with the way he played. Murray simply ran into a man who–four years removed from his last Wimbledon final, and three years removed from his last Grand Slam finals appearance (the 2006 U.S. Open, also against Federer)–summoned forth the grittiest and gutsiest big-point tennis of his life.

Andy Roddick couldn’t have known that he would get back to the big stage on the final Sunday of any slam, let alone Wimbledon. Doubt and uncertainty have marked the past few years of an athletic odyssey pockmarked with potholes and stumbles and searing disappointments. But now, after conjuring up a considerable amount of courage in the face of a crowd that wanted the other Andy to win, Mr. Roddick has to feel that he can overcome any future challenges that come his way.

Sunday, that challenge is named Roger Federer. Cause for concern? Sure. Cause for fear or worry? Not for a man who has seen all the highs and lows of life on the ATP Tour, especially since the last time he faced Fed in a Wimbledon final.

Andy Roddick–fresh off the heels of this life-changing Friday in suburban London–will give everything he has when he faces Federer, and “everything” amounts to a lot when Roddick is the topic of discussion. Andy Murray could tell you as much after a superb semifinal showdown that created a wonderful and inspiring story… just not the one the British people were hoping to read in the Saturday papers.

As Roger Federer keeps winning Grand Slam matches, the history of tennis will continuously be rewritten. Most professionals play for numbers that deal with money; for a champion like Federer, the meaningful numbers can be found in the milestones he attains each time he steps on court.

Federer made more record-keepers and stat geeks happy on Friday afternoon at Wimbledon, prevailing over Tommy Haas in the day’s first gentlemen’s singles semifinal. A close but convincing 7-6 (3), 7-5, 6-3 win over the 24th-seeded German carries Federer into Sunday’s championship match. The triumph possesses the added benefit of burnishing the Swiss superstar’s already gleaming credentials.

For the first two sets of this tussle, the action on the lawns of Centre Court looked a lot like the last match contested by these two men. One month ago in Paris, Federer and Haas dueled in the fourth round of the French Open. On that afternoon, the first two sets were decided by 7-6 and 7-5 scores, just like today’s tilt at SW19. Similarly to this Wimbledon sequel, Federer never faced a break point in France during the first set, while Haas–serving huge in his own right–steered the set to a tiebreak. In the second set on the red clay of Roland Garros, Haas made a late push at 5-all, breaking Federer for a two-set lead. Yes, the Swiss rallied over the final three sets to take that match in five, but for most of that day at Court Philippe Chatrier, Federer had little room for error against his friendly 31-year-old foe. The match was, without question, the toughest on Fed’s road to his elusive French Open title.

Friday at the All-England Club, Federer didn’t need five sets (or even four) to dismiss Haas, but the quality of the combat remained spirited and relatively even. The difference between Paris and suburban London–besides the playing surface, of course–was the fact that Federer managed to win the first-set tiebreak, thanks to a bold backhand return that gave the No. 2 seed a 5-3 mini-break advantage he would not relinquish. That display of composure on the part of Federer was enough to change the course of the competition. The 7-3 tiebreak win allowed the 14-time Grand Slam champion to breathe a little more freely. Had Haas been able to steal the first set, a replay of a June joust on red clay could have easily unfolded in early July on grass.

As it was, Haas still made a bold charge at the heavy favorite, pushing the second set to 5-all with continued clutch serving and a deceptively powerful backhand that gave the Swiss problems in extended rallies. Federer leaned on his serve for much of the match, but Haas often enjoyed a great amount of comfort from the baseline. Just one more service hold from a tiebreak, Haas had to feel optimistic about his prospects when he toed the line at 5-6 in the second set.

But that’s when the five-time Wimbledon champion decided to put his foot down.

Just as Haas secured a late break to win a 7-5 second set at the French, Fed turned the tables to snag a 7-5 second stanza in this particular passion play. While the German underdog struggled with his first serve and felt the weight of the moment, Federer ripped a crowd-pleasing crosscourt forehand to earn a break point that doubled as a set point. Just moments later, an extended rally–the kind of exchange Haas had been winning for most of the set–ended with the 24th seed overcooking a forehand. In the blink of an eye, a set that had “tiebreak” written all over it had become a portal to an easier afternoon for Federer.

Haas would stay in the thick of the fight through the first seven games of the third set, but at 3-4, the German fended off four break points, only to lose a fifth with a tired backhand into the net. Federer, who never faced a break point all afternoon and was rarely pushed to deuce in his own service games, cleanly served out the match at 5-3, sparing himself of the need for five sets of work. Haas acquitted himself well in a match that didn’t differ all that much from last month’s fistfight in France; Federer, however, won the handful of key points in the opening sets… the very same handful of points that didn’t go his way in Paris. That’s why statisticians and tennis historians have so much to write about before Sunday’s final.

Just what numbers are being bandied about as Federer marches onward at Wimbledon?

* 20. That’s the number of Grand Slam finals Fed has now reached, the most for any male tennis player. The Swiss entered the day tied with Ivan Lendl (19 slam finals), but now, the No. 2 seed is number one on the all-time list.

*16, 17. Federer’s win means that the Swiss has now reached 16 finals in the past 17 slam tournaments, a phenomenal stretch of excellence made possible by his greatest streak, the run of 21 consecutive appearances in slam semifinals. Speaking of slam semis…

* 18-3. This win over Haas gives Federer an 18-3 record in that span of 21 straight Grand Slam semifinals. The other two semifinal wins in Fed’s slam career came before the beginning of that 21-tournament streak.

* 7. Pete Sampras might have won seven Wimbledons, the most in history, but he didn’t win them by reaching the finals on an uninterrupted basis. Federer has “only” five titles at this prestigious tournament, but this triumph today allows the world No. 2 to appear in a seventh straight Wimbledon final, a distinction unmatched by any other man in history. William Renshaw (1882-’87), Wilfred Baddeley (1891-’96), and Bjorn Borg (1976-’81) all reached six straight Wimby finals (in the era shared by Renshaw and Baddeley, the defending champion gained an automatic berth into the final), but Fed now stands alone at seven.

* 6. Federer has an active streak of six straight Grand Slam finals.

* 1. No, that’s not Federer’s current world ranking (though it will be when Wimbledon ends), but it points to the number of people other than Rafael Nadal who have beaten Federer at a Grand Slam event since the 2005 French Open. That’s right–only one man other than Rafa has beaten Fed in the past 18 majors: Novak Djokovic in the 2008 Australian Open.

That’s enough numbers for now. If Federer wins on Sunday, we all know what number will dominate the headlines then: 15.

Not much needs to be said on that count.

The history books will note that Serena Williams won Thursday’s sensational Wimbledon semifinal against Elena Dementieva. When glimpsed from a higher vantage point, however, this ladies’ singles spectacular formed a mountaintop moment that will be shared by both performers, and an audience lucky enough to watch it.

Yes, Serena claimed this classic confrontation, 6-7 (4), 7-5, 8-6, in 2 hours and 49 minutes before an enthralled and effusive Centre Court crowd, but the main storyline of this heartstopper-a heavenly chorus in the cathedral of tennis–was that for once, Dementieva shared the Grand Slam spotlight with the 10-time major champion, instead of shrinking from it.

Indeed, when a measure of this match is taken, tennis historians will be sure to realize that while Serena–still the best closer in the women’s game–showcased the full range of her talents under pressure, it was Dementieva who was responsible for allowing Thursday’s thriller to attain such lofty heights.

Dementieva’s tennis journey has been a lucrative one (over $11 million so far), but a life on the WTA Tour has not netted the 27-year-old a Grand Slam trophy. Dementieva reached two major finals in 2004, but memorably choked at the French Open (against Anastasia Myskina) and faltered at the U.S. Open (versus Svetlana Kuznetsova). Since that season, Dementieva hasn’t been able to get back to the finals of a top-tier tournament. This match on famed Centre Court marked the Russian’s fourth semifinal appearance in her past five majors, but that consistency was somewhat overshadowed by Dementieva’s failure to win any of those matches. A fixture in the top 5 but a rarity in championship matches at the most coveted events of the year, this vexing veteran needed to play against type if she was to remain competitive against Serena’s expected onslaught.

Oh, how Dementieva answered that clarion call.

On this electrifying afternoon, the No. 4 seed did endure her share of hiccups, such as a botched backhand that allowed Serena to take the second set, and a nervous forehand that allowed the Serena to break back early in the third set after the Russian took a 3-1 lead. With that said, Dementieva didn’t descend into a pool of self-pity the way she normally has in semifinal slam showdowns. Whenever Dementieva dumped a ball into the net or sprayed a makeable shot wide of the sideline, she was able to play highlight-reel points immediately afterward. Forgetting her mistakes with uncommon poise, Dementieva exhibited the clearheaded crispness that elite athletes bring to the table in high-stakes situations. Adversity has typically toppled “Demmy” with ease in high-profile matches, but on July 2, 2009, this WTA workhorse found the tunnel vision that had eluded her for so long. Several instances revealed this encouraging development for Dementieva:

* Despite having to serve just to stay in the first set–at 4-5 and 5-6–Dementieva, long known as a fragile flower at the service line, stood tall on Thursday. The Russian wore out the corners of each service box, placing her first serves near the lines with a considerable amount of pace. No longer hitting cream-puff second serves as well, Demmy was able to hold for 5-all and 6-all, steering the set into a tiebreak that the Russian won when a Serena forehand landed just wide.

* In the second set, Serena–in the most controversial moment of the match–used a challenge from Hawkeye to save a break point at 3-4. Regular television replays indicated that Serena’s forehand hit the baseline, but was just wide of the right sideline. Hawkeye disagreed, however, and the second-seeded American made the most of her second chance by holding for 4-all. Normally, that kind of turnaround would have shaken Dementieva’s nerves, but in the next game, she held serve and stayed in the hypnotic trance that carried her through the day’s play.

* After she briefly flinched to hand back her break lead early in the third set, Dementieva then held convincingly in each of her next four service games. What was especially remarkable was that after Serena saved match point and held for 5-all in the deciding set, Dementieva shrugged off that disappointment to hold for 6-5.

* In a larger context, Dementieva–slugging with distinction for nearly three full hours–inevitably encountered a tidal wave of frustrating moments when the prospect of victory faded as soon as it appeared. (Any tennis pro will meet with such experiences in a match that runs long.) Yet, to the very end, the Russian was playing high-level tennis, giving as good as she got against the most accomplished player of the 21st century. This version of Demmy will win a Grand Slam; the key will be for the 27-year-old to maintain the mindset that served her so well this Wimbledon.

Now, what to say about Serena that hasn’t already been said?

Quite simply, a cinch for the International Tennis Hall of Fame actually managed to increase her stature in the sport with her performance against Dementieva. Serena Jameka Williams threw down 20 aces, most of them in the crucible provided by the latter stages of the third set. When down match point at 4-5, 30-40 in the third, Serena–who won just 9 of 19 net points on the day–had the courage to come to the net and correctly read a Dementieva passing shot. The Russian chose to go crosscourt, and Serena leaped to her left to knock off a backhand volley to stay alive.

As the heat of battle only grew more intense, Serena would play even better.

At 5-6 and deuce, the younger Williams sister traded sizzling two-handed backhands with Demmy, in a fearsome rally of breathtaking proportions. Serena’s final backhand was so viciously struck that it knocked the Russian to the ground. On the very next point, a dazzling, all-court rally ended with Serena nailing an artfully curled crosscourt forehand passing shot to level for 6-all. In the following game, Serena–twice fighting for her life in her own service games–decided to apply pressure to Demmy’s serve by ripping her returns and remaining willing to come to net. A steely volley at 6-all, 15-all landed on the baseline to give the No. 2 seed a 15-30 opening. A few points later, at 30-40, Serena uncorked a nasty return and, with the court pried open, hit a down-the-line forehand behind Dementieva to secure a break lead at 7-6.

With no final-set tiebreaks at Wimbledon, Serena had attained considerable scoreboard leverage, and when serving for the match at 7-6, that leverage turned into victory.

Finally able to serve for yet another Wimbledon final, Serena allowed her first serve to carry her to the finish line. Losing two points on second serves, Serena won all four first-serve points in the 14th and final game of the third set. When a Dementieva backhand barely missed the left sideline on match point, an unquestioned classic was complete.

Elena Dementieva simply played the best tennis match of her entire life, and yet, in the end, she still lost. That’s all you need to know about one of the great women’s tennis players of all time, and it’s a fair way of summarizing one of the most memorable matches in Wimbledon’s 132-year history.