He appears to have gotten back on track.

At this point, unseeded Gasquet appears both sufficiently seasoned and back to form sufficiently to make this his best run ever in a Grand Slam. His Second Round annihilation of Nicholay Davidenko was as dominant a performance over a ranked opponent as has been seen so far in the 2010 U.S. Open.

With Ryan Harrison's performance today, we are reminded that great performances can become commonplace from up-and-coming players. And his path could see two other Frenchmen, Clement and Monfils. Yet somehow, Gasquet seems the pick because of his performances a few years ago.

Gael Monfils

Monfils is seeded seventeenth in the 2010 U.S. Open. In 2009, he reached ninth in the world. In Grand Slams, Monfils has reached the Quarterfinals and Semifinals at Roland Garros, and has reached the Fourth Round in the 2008 and 2009 U.S. Open. Another player who seems ready to make a run, Monfils may only have another Frenchman to worry about as he may reach the Round of Sixteen to face Gasquet. If they meet, the winner could run the tables to the Finals.

Michael Llodra

Llodra reached the Quarterfinals in 2009. The deepest of all the French players in the 2009 U.S. Open, Llodra appears to be at top form and gaining confidence. Between Llodra and the Finals are Murray and Nadal. Both will prove a very difficult barrier to his first Finals.

Arnaud Clement

Clement is another Frenchman who seems to be ready for a deep run at the Open. He plays with an eye problem, which makes any run he makes special.

While playing he often wears a bandana and sunglasses. The sunglasses have been medically prescribed for Clement because of severe eye problems he has encountered through his life, which had nearly left him blind as a child.

Francophiles may ask: "Why are Monfils, Gasquet, and Clement all in the same quarter of the draw?" We would answer: "With Roddick, Baghdatis, and Davydenko out of that draw, why complain?"

Paul-Henri Mathieu

Mathieu reached the Fourth Round at Wimbledon, and is enjoying a resurgence of his tennis. 28 years old and once looking at many players with his No. 12 ranking, Mathieu would have to get past Federer in this upcoming round. Can he do it? Perhaps.

So there they are. And, as a curiosity perhaps, except for Llodra, they would have to get by Federer. No small piece of work, but who knows in this 2010 U.S. Open?

And that is The Real Truth! 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

This abundance also means that it becomes very difficult for one major to stand out among the crowd. Hence, one major often becomes more important or more memorable than the others. People will remember the 2008 Wimbledon more clearly than, say, the 2006 final because of how remarkable the 2008 final was.

A Grand Slam needs to have a signature moment. A moment which the fans will remember for a long time, the story of which will sometimes eclipse all other events. At Wimbledon this year, it was the Isner-Mahut saga that stole the show more than the fact that Rafael Nadal completed his second Euro Slam.

Last year, the Cinderella story of Melanie Oudin stole the show ahead of Juan Martin del Potro and Roger Federer (in fact, Federer’s tweener became much more discussed, too).

Already four days into the Open, the final major at the Flushing Meadows was missing such a story. An event which not only displays the sport's high quality, but is backed up with lots of emotion and drama to compel even the most neutral fans of the game to vehemently take sides.

And when we talk of the Open, two things come to mind. An up-and-coming American player and a fifth-set tiebreaker. This was exactly what happened as I sat and watched  (half-yawning) as Andy Murray steamroll past his second-round opponent (not that Murray was not playing good—in fact, I like Murray’s game a lot. Just that it is no fun watching a one-sided affair. Which is why I usually skip Federer’s first-week matches at a major). I saw the IBM Slam Tracker where the match between Ryan Harrison and Sergiy Stakhovsky (I assure you the spelling is correct—I looked it up on Google) just reached the deciding set.

True to the American hype, Harrison was the news after his first-round win, and I decided to look him up during the changeover. To my surprise, I found the word “Nick Bollettieri” in his Wikipedia entry. A surprise, because this kid looked anything but a product from the Bollettieri Academy. First, he looked small and less powerful—even though the ATP listed him as 6'1"—than most from the NB Academy (think Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, or Maria Sharapova).

The second surprise was the way he played. He had lots of flexibility, for one, which was apparent even during his serve as he sufficiently bent his knees and spine, and even attempted some Clijsters’ type splits. Next, he didn't seem like a former NBian—hard-hitting, baseline ball-bashing. He possessed a good, smooth slice, made good, intelligent approaches and was never afraid to serve and volley, even on the second serve.

For all the goods the boy has, it sometimes became irritating to watch the crowd go totally against Sergiy, even when he had done seemingly nothing wrong other than competing well against the local hero. While a crowd cheering for the apparent villain’s unforced errors is nothing new (the French Open quarterfinal between Nadal and Robin Soderling comes to mind), it was the commentators’ total obsession (whose comments were streamed live at usopen.org) with Harrison to the point of even forgetting that the court contained two players is what added the emotion.

Sergiy understood it perfectly well too, which is why he tried nothing silly to start an uncontrollable crowd uproar. In fact, he mostly seemed visibly uninterested in the contest, to the point of looking rather amused at the whole situation as he let out some dry smiles in between the points. This in no way affected the way he played, though, as he showed thorough fighting spirit (perhaps the crowd turned him on) including some courage as well.

Is it somewhat annonying that modern tennis has primarily become a baseline-bashing game?

Sure, most of the top 10 have succeeded with such a style, but we do have players like Sergiy (and now Harrison), Michael Llorda, and the like who keep the beauty of the touch game alive. And watching these players, there is hope that some day a kid with such a style will come along with the mental strength of Nadal (both players committed double faults at 5-5 and 6-6 in the fifth set tie-breaker, respectively) and will dominate the circuit.

Will that kid be Ryan Harrison? He did not come out the better man today—it was Sergiy who fell to the court in relief, much to my ecstasy, if only to see the rude NY crowd and disillusioned broadcasters disappointed—but it would be great to see this all-court player become successful in the future.

Today, though, it was about irrational emotion and beautiful all-court play. And with this, I have got my signature event for the 2010 US Open...so far.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Neither exciting or particularly wonderful in any phase of his game, Stakhovsky has fairly good court coverage and is relatively steady from the backcourt. If there is a strength, it is his drop shot, which is fairly accurate especially if done from a fairly weak return. He is also fairly good at moving players around to set them up for a ground stroke winner.

Stakhovsky has an average serve and slight looks. At 6'4" (1.93m), he weighs only 176 pounds (80 kilos). He is so skinny that he appears more slight than any other tennis winner this year. Yet the Ukrainian is ninth in aces, with 29 in his first round. He also won the Pilot Pen against a relatively weak field. 

American Qualifier Ryan Harrison, at 18 the youngest player left in the 2010 US Open, is Stakhovsky's current opponent. He is not likely to put up much of a fuss, although Harrison is playing very well at the moment in front of a home crowd.

In looking at the rest of the men's draw, Stakhovsky will probably face Feliciano Lopez next. Lopez beat Rafael Nadal at this year's Queen's Club in June, his first win against six losses since 2003. 

After this, if Nadal gets past his next few opponents, Stakhovsky will meet him in the Round of 16. That match will be the first for them if they meet.

Getting by Nadal and likely next opponent Fernando Verdasco would set up a semifinals match against likely opponent Andy Murray. If by some miracle he reaches the finals, most believe he will meet Roger Federer, who he has also never met. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

11 AM on The Tennis Channel- (24) Daniela Hontuchova (SVK) vs. (12) Elena Dementieva (RUS) 

The day kicks off when two players once ranked in the top five duel it out at Arthur Ashe Stadium.

1:30 PM on ESPN2- (6) Francesca Schiavone (ITA) vs. (29) Alona Bondarenko (UKR)

Schiavone is a hard working dirtballer who broke through at Rolland Garros this summer for her first major victory. Despite the seeding, Bondarenko has an excellent shot at an upset as she has the more complete all around game. However, Schiavone's conditioning may play the determining factor in the New York heat.

3 PM on ESPN2- (4) Andy Murray (GRB) vs. Dustin Brown (JAM)

Tournament favorite Andy Murray should show his variety and athleticism against relative unknown Dustin Brown. Brown has size and a big serve, but Murray should roll on to the next round.

6 PM ESPN2- Gilles Simon (FRA) vs. Phillip Kohlschreiber (GER)

The clever but mercurial Gilles Simon, who's fallen from #6 in the world 18 months ago, takes on Kohlschreiber, who's looking to return to the third round of the Open for the third time in four years.

7 PM on ESPN2- (3) Venus Williams (USA) vs. Mandy Minella (LUX)

Queens favorite Venus Williams will try to advance on the path to her third US Open championship. Minella, who is playing in her first major, will have to hope for a miracle victory at Arthur Ashe against one of the legends of the game.

9 PM on ESPN2- (1) Rafael Nadal (ESP) vs. Denis Istomin (UZB)

Nadal looks to steady himself after a shaky hard court season against rising Uzbeki Denis Istomin.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

At this point in his career his early exits should be expected, but for some reason it never feels that way—at least not until the moment when he's waiting at the net to shake hands, while his opponent is sending air kisses and tennis balls into the stands.

Wednesday night in Arthur Ashe Stadium, we witnessed yet another standard Andy Roddick loss. "He went out and earned a win," Roddick said after Jarko Tipsarevic beat him in four sets.

It's really an amazing coincidence that almost every time Roddick loses, his opponent happens to play at the highest level. Bad luck, you ask? Luck is for blackjack and roulette players.

Giving credit where it's due, Jarko did play one hell of a match last night. However, Roddick performed more conservatively than a stand-up comic in a church.

Both players rallied back and forth from the baseline, as fans watched and waited to see who would make an unforced error first. What they saw was winners instead of errors, and they were not hit by the home favorite in blue.

Grand Slam loss after Grand Slam loss, I still find myself sitting in front of the television every year, like a naive child thinking, "This is his time." After about 10 years, I think last night's loss to Tipsarevic just about ended my wishful thinking in regards to Andy Roddick ever winning another Grand Slam trophy.

Yes, he still has a dominant serve, and yes, he's still one of the most talented players in the world. But in this crazy game we call tennis, (or any other game for that matter) it's about the mental toughness and the ability to overcome adversity. Poor Andy just seems to be missing that one desirable quality that all champions share.

Whether it's a blister, his opponent's high level of play, his swimsuit model wife in the stands, or simply having an off day, something always seems to go wrong when the going gets tough for Andy Roddick.

In July of 2009, it looked like Roddick had made his resurgence back to the tennis elite. He had won his first and only Grand Slam in Flushing in 2003, and last year against the world's best he had the chance to win his second Grand Slam, advancing to the finals of Wimbledon.

Despite losing a classic and well-fought battle to Roger Federer, he seemed to win back his supporters, while convincing the world that this would be a new beginning. He was like Leonardo DiCaprio in Inception, deceiving us by planting this "crazy" idea in our heads that Andy Roddick would assert himself and join the likes of Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer as the game's elite class.

He was as close as you can get, losing 16-14 in the fifth set to the best player in the galaxy. He had revamped his game, and he looked stronger than ever.  

Well, maybe it just wasn't meant to be. His following five Grand Slam results after the loss to Federer: third round loss in 2009 US Open...quarterfinals loss in 2010 Australian Open...third round loss in 2010 French Open...fourth round loss in 2010 Wimbledon...followed by last night's second round loss in the 2010 US Open.

The guy is just missing that "it" factor. The "it" is not like an acquired taste for wine that you pick up with time. It's not something you can practice day in and day out or something you can study. It has nothing to do with strategy, mechanics, or strength.

Without "it," you're just another athlete in the draw relying on pure talent, and in a tournament that requires six wins to be a champion, talent alone most likely won't be enough.

Roddick is like the Steve Carell of the Emmys. He's funny enough to be nominated year after year, yet he never wins "The Most Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series" award. Andy does well enough throughout the year to earn himself annual rankings in the top 10 and seems to be a top seed in every Grand Slam event he plays in. He just doesn't have the full package to beat out the highest, and at times the most inferior, competition.

"I'll sleep a lot better than I did at Wimbledon, which basically, I thought, felt like I hand-fed someone a win. ... Tonight, I felt like the guy earned it." I could have heard Morgan Freeman read that quote in a completely different context with his immaculate voice and still guessed it was Andy Roddick that said it.

He's just missing that warrior, killer instinct approach to the game that champions use as fuel. You just get the feeling he's more of a celebrity with a popular Twitter page and a hot wife than he is a successful athlete.

With Andy Roddick now 28 years old, we wonder if we have seen the best of him. We wonder if he has another run left in him that could help erase years of disappointment. It seems Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi should be sitting comfortably in their seats knowing that no American is going to replace their faces as tennis heroes anytime soon. But hey, there's always next year, right?

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

It is too late to dodge any of these, says the Spaniard.

In this vampirish tale of the two legends, Ilie Năstase, the character of ill and nasty, may have been expunged from the lonesome underworld of tennis.

Yet, in the absence, Romanian folklore of vampires lurks above. The all-black, sparsely doted with neon yellow, outfit in the Wolf’s body is ominous: He went pink to pink last month and now he is going black to black with the Vampire at the Open. 

The scene of the last battle is set under no sunlight on the asphalt, Vampire’s favorite time of day and its natural habitat. Further down, by Meadow Lake, owls are hooting, twit twoo, hoo hoo. And from outside the Ashe, honk honk of locomotives chime in. Humans and non-humans, the escapees from Queens Zoo, have thronged into the Coliseum with their usual oo-ooh a-aahs, oo-ooh a-aahs, and other celebratory screams.        

The moon stands still for a second above when the coin is tossed below. Both canine-toothed creatures look into their eyes and they are restless to pull out their weapons, growling in hunger for each other’s blood.

Let me go back in time and talk about the lead-up events, before fast-forwarding to the inevitable future.

The history between the two favors the Wolf. He has ousted the ballerina everywhere he has met, and the last bastion is no longer safe. With Rafa’s easy route of the draw, the time has arrived.

The Swiss saw this coming: "[Despite the surface] if the draw goes his way, he'll be in the finals and have a crack to the title, too. He knows how to win slams. He's won all the other ones."

The thought of facing the Wolf sends chills to the Vampire’s bones: "I think we get excited when we play each other, but I don't think we miss each other when we don't play. We've had that many matches against each other, and the matches are tough and grueling on both of us. There's a huge hype around it, which is also a bit exhausting at times."

Then, suddenly realizing he has sounded soft, the Vampire throws a corrective line, "Look, I hope I can play him at the Open."

Yet, Federer saw the signs in Nadal: "[I knew] he was going to improve also on the faster surfaces because right off the bat he beat me in Miami. He already had signs to show that he was also a capable fast-court player."

Pardon my brief diversion into the stats. Since that '04 Miami, Nadal has won nine of his 41 battles in title matches on hard court, including the '09 Australian Open, five Masters Series, and '08 Olympics. That record already makes a strong case for Nadal's hard-court pedigree.

With two Grand Slams, three Masters on clay, and return to No. 1 ranking by the widest margin against Federer, the year 2010 may have been the second best of Nadal's career, and, with that, the responsibility to not let his fans down.

But his last title on hard court came at the '09 Indian Wells, almost a year and half ago. At the beginning of this year, he reached his only final at Doha, losing to Davydenko. After going down in straight sets at the Australian Open in February, he lost to Murray again in straight sets at the Canada Masters 12 days ago.

But the lead-up results do not mean much in the Grand Slam scheme of Nadal’s: "You can be playing bad here [Canada and Cincinnati] and arrive there [New York] and start the tournament slow, [get] better and better every day, and you can finish playing your best tennis and win.”

If the Vampire and his worshippers are praying for the Wolf’s knee injuries or other physical maladies, your wish is denied for this year: "I am perfect mentally. ... Physically I'm perfect."

If you are thinking that the soft Wilson ball of the U.S. Open is harder for the Wolf to generate topspin, it has found compensation in more powerful serve. He “won the Olympics [and Beijing 500] with this ball.”

To bring Nasty into the cultural context of the rivalry, imagine the ghost of Romanian wolf entering the Spaniard. Then, you would have Rafa repeating Federer verbatim, “No. 2, No. 3—it doesn’t matter much. It’s No. 1 that matters.”

A more Năstase-like response would be: “I permanently reside in your head and you are simply afraid of playing me. I thrive on clay but how would you lose to me at the AO and Wimby?”

Nasty aside, the plan was set in motion long ago and execution shows a certain pattern: Nadal’s steady progress at the Australian Open nearly parallels his USO project, advancing a round further each year. Semifinals last two years means the final this year.

The Swiss is aware of this: "[...] he’s won the Australian Open already; he's been multiple times in the semis of the U.S. Open, so that is the stuff that he does now quite comfortably."

Nadal fans believe that the brute of nature is unbeatable in the final. I concur that even if he might not produce Kantian sublime beauty, his merciless defensive aggression and unyielding mental frame are huge pluses for reaching the U.S. Open final.

To fast-forward to the court, here is what happened on September 12, the judgment day:   

The Wolf rendered the Vampire’s chip and charge shots with swift and powerful angled passes. The Vampire’s reliable forehand was countered shot by shot, by running him from corner to corner and pinioning him behind the baseline.

With extreme investment, durability, urgency, expediency and mental fortitude, Rafa, once again, dismantled the Swiss choreography, rhythm, ballet dancing and efficiency. More appropriately, death by anaphylactic reaction or haemorrhagic shock was the sure outcome when the Babolat’s forehand ceaselessly hacked at the Wilson’s backhand.

The Wolf continued asphyxiating his arch-rival until the last few thump-thumps of the Swiss heart were audible in the suddenly pin-drop silence of the Coliseum.   

The Wolf’s nastiness is not about verbalization but thrashing the opponent mercilessly, sucking blood out, and leaving him lifeless. The last missing castle is set in place where it properly belongs, in the fathomless dungeon of the Mediterranean Wolf’s Career Slam.

The last words of pain reverberated across the sky, with the body parts floating in flames: “Aarghh,” followed by a flash of an uncanny smile, perhaps a tribute to the conquests of many unsurpassable summits. The “Aarghh” had the late modernist sound of DA, the thunder in Elliot’s Waste Land: Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata (give, sympathize, control).

An honorable burial of the dead was observed, highlighted by the placement of a “Wolf-Conquers” inscribed Babolat racket on the magnesium vault containing the Vampire’s body splinters.

With that, a new era of the sublime beauty of the brute is formally initiated. I wonder how Nasty would feel about it, who once said in the 1970s, "What is behave? Every player like this, not only me, babee. We all nervous, all temperament, all crazy."                   

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

So far, the biggest win of the tournament was Richard Gasquet's victory over Nickolay Davydenko, the sixth seed. I have Gasquet as one of two to watch for getting far in the tournament.

Kei Nishikori's victory over eleventh seed Marin Cilic is in my mind the biggest upset. I would never have picked this one. Here are others to watch for upsets, good matches, and to see how well the players are doing during the tournament.

James Blake v. Peter Polansky

In a match of old versus new, thirty-year-old Blake takes on twenty-two-year-old Polansky. Blake, who once reached fourth in the world, has been trying to rejuvenate his game. He is currently ranked 108th and unseeded. His opponent is new to the U.S. Open, but has already won some spurs advancing against Juan Monaco who was seeded thirtieth. 

Robin Soderling (5) v. Taylor Dent

As matches go, Soderling may have had the weakest opening of all the seeded players in both draws who still did not lose. This round, he meets Taylor Dent, a U.S. player who may not have as much to offer. Dent's major problem is that Soderling is not going to relax a bit until he seals a win. On the other hand, if Dent wins one of the first two sets, he could take Soderling a long way.  We will see if he can make something happen today, although as I write this, he is almost down two sets with the results seemingly already at hand for Soderling.

Jurgen Melzger (12) v. Ricardas Berankis 

The smaller twenty-year-old Berankis may trip up Melzger at a tough time. This match is ongoing as I write this article. Hurry over to see the outcome of this match, currently tied at one set apiece. With Melzger doing so well this year at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, a quick exit would be a shocker.

Maria Sharapova (14) v. Iveta Benesova

Sharapova, one of the two favored women to win the tournament, is not yet Grand Slam sharp. Benesova, a left-hander, could pose a problem for the taller and much better Sharapova. This is worth seeing to find out just how much the first match for Sharapova helped her for the upcoming matches.

The whole tournament is worth watching. These are just a few of the great tennis on display in New York today. Remember, these matches are offered live on www.usopen.org and on ESPN2 or the Tennis Channel. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

But with Federer only now beginning his return to the form he had pre-French and Wimby quarterfinal exits (thank you, Mr. Soderling and Mr. Berdych), and with Nadal's perhaps less than blazing return onto the summer hard courts, there seem to be more questions than answers regarding the inevitability of a FEDAL Showdown at Arthur Ashe Stadium.

Will Mardy Fish's current hot streak and "just say no" policy to cheese and chocolate reward him with a shiny trophy to raise above his newly svelte body? (A huge serve and that bullet backhand might also have a hand in it.)

Will the typically oppressive heat of the Open prevent Novak Djokovic from making a real run to the final? (Or will he complete his Retirement Grand Slam and retire from all four Majors?)

Will this new wave of "Big Boys" tennis led by the likes of Robin Soderling and Tomas Berdych, with their blow-you-off the-court flat groundstrokes, actually blow anyone off the court? (And if they were to meet each other in the finals, what would that signal for the state of tennis going forward?)

Will perennial underachievers Ernests Gulbis, Richard Gasquet, or Fernando Verdasco inflict enough damage to shake up the draw? (Or possibly even make a surprise appearance in a semifinal?)

Will Andy Roddick's recovery from a recent case of mild mono prevent him from making a deep run? (Or will he push through only to be SlamBlocked by Fed in the semis?)

Will an injury that should have required a four- to six-week recovery period prevent John Isner from making a real impact, since he's shown up in two? (And will that impact be enough to replace his historic match against Nicolas Mahut in the forefront of people's minds?)

Will Nikolay Davydenko's recent return from a wrist injury make it even more difficult for him in a five-set format than it normally is? (Oooh, painful flashback to AO 2010.)

Will Andy Murray's arrival at the tourney with his mother acting as his de facto coach prove that "Mother knows best?" (Maybe a little more Mom and a little less British press are just the things he needs to net him his first Major.)

Will the time Nadal took off to heal his knees be just the thing that will allow him to arrive fully fit for a final appearance? (Or will it have created a rust on his game that he won't be able to scrape off in time?)

Will Paul Annacone's official integration into the Federer family improve Fed's return of serve, aggressive net play, and break point conversions soon enough to yield measurable results for this tourney? (And while he's at it, maybe he could also raise Fed's numbers on successful challenges.)

Federer wants to prove he's not being aged out of his sport and take down another Major on his way to his declared goal of No. 20. Nadal wants his first US Open and to complete the Grand Slam, Murray wants that monkey off his back, not to mention the British press, and to win his first Major...and Djokovic...eh, well I'm not sure he actually cares all that much right now.

This year, though, more than others in the recent past, it seems that besides the top four, there could be any number of other players turning up for the showdown at center court.

What we do know for sure is that the crowd will be loud, the music will be rockin', and with Juan Martin del Potro out with an injury, unable to defend his title, when the dust settles, there will be a new sheriff in town.

**PLEASE NOTE** This article was written before the start of the Open, but owing to the fact that there were delays that prevented it from being posted immediately, that means some of these questions have already been answered! ;-)

R.I.P. Roddick and Berdych.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Federer has the occasional habit of delaying making excuses for a loss, sometimes for months.

This, in my opinion, is done to suit his particular needs with regards to getting some sort of edge over his opponent, or bolstering his waning sense of security before the Grand Slams.

In a recent interview before day one of the US Open in Flushing Meadows, New York, Roger Federer announced he had a variety of ailments during his run at the Masters event in Toronto in early August.

Federer stated that because he had not played a match since losing at Wimbledon at the end of June, he was affected by a variety of physical issues.

"In Toronto I really had a lot of muscle pain, my arm, my wrist, my chest, my shoulder. Coming back right off the bat after six weeks and playing such tough matches early on was tough on the body," said Federer

These are, in effect, carefully planted insinuations as to why he lost to Andy Murray in the final of Toronto and are designed to get into the mind of his recent and subsequent opponents.

Federer has a history of blaming past losses to Murray on illness and injury.

At the beginning of the current season, he pinned his defeats at the hands of the Scot in 2008 on "mono" and a back ailment. This is an example of Federer's 'delayed excuse' tactic that he sometimes implements before important matches at the Slam events, and will be discussed later.

In his post-match interview after the final match, he praised Murray's new-found aggression and made only minimal excuses for his loss.

One could have deduced from these words that Federer was starting to have respect for his young rival—a player he is known to dislike simply because the talented Scot is one of the very few who has the resources to take him apart, not by brute force, but by tactical cunning.

Federer's respect, however, was short-lived, and as is so often the case before the majors, he needs to resort to explaining past defeats to strengthen what he perceives as his fading court presence, especially in the eyes of those who have dealt him heavy blows in the past.

This is a clear and disrespectful strategy to get a mental edge over his opponents.

It is sneaky behavior of the highest order, and worse than making injury claims right after a match, such as his excuses after losing to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon—in the latter case without even being specifically asked.

It will be recalled that his main rival, Rafael Nadal, had the same lay-off after Wimbledon, but made no mention of injuries after his semifinal defeat by Murray.

And the Spaniard could easily have done so to bolster his ego, and would have made a believable case for himself, considering his history of knee troubles.

After Federer lost to Novak Djokovic in the semifinals of the Australian Open in 2008, no blame was laid on any physical issues—nor should there have been. Federer dispatched both James Blake and Berdych, both solid hard court players, in straight sets.

Towards the end of that season, he stated that he was, indeed, suffering from an illness and was hampered physically in that match.

Federer was looking to either boost his fading aura and get under the skin of his rival, or take away from Djokovic's tremendous achievement. 

In 2008, Federer lost to Murray at the Masters event in Madrid, and at the group stage of the Masters Cup in Shanghai. He had some words of praise for his opponent after those losses.

At the Australian Open this year, Federer changed his mind about the Scot's past victories, blaming his losses on illness and injury.

Like his bravado before the final match with Murray in Australia, when he all but declared his indestructible prowess in the Slams, those attempts at downgrading Murray's wins were meant to rattle his still maturing rival.

Perhaps Federer should get a lesson in humility from Andy Roddick.

After his defeat at the hands of Janko Tipsarevic in the second round of this year's US Open, a major upset in the eyes of many, Roddick simply acknowledged his opponent's brilliant game.

"Tonight, I felt like the guy earned it. That's probably easier to deal with when he comes up with the goods."

The American could easily have mentioned the illness with which he was diagnosed not long ago, as a possible reason for his loss, but tactfully refrained from doing so.

Going back to the interview discussed at the beginning, Federer also mentioned that he is in good physical and mental shape. "I feel as good as I can feel prior to a Grand Slam," he said, also adding that he has "no niggling injuries, no pain anywhere."

Let's wait and see if he holds true to those words, should he lose at the Open. Of course, his opponent might be a determining factor.

We all know how he feels about Murray. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

They will have no choice but to unanimously label him as the greatest of all time.

The Legacy

Now, why does this tournament forever define the tennis god known as Roger Federer? The answer has to do with perception. 

His dominance and perceived invincibility seems to be wearing away now. Despite his convincing win last week against Mardy Fish and the rest of the Cincinnati Masters tournament field, critics are saying that the Swiss tennis player's reign of supremacy is coming to a screeching halt. 

While he currently sits just below Rafael Nadal on the tennis ladder, 2010 has seen Federer fall to No. 3 in the world for the first time since 2003. He still has the ability to win any tournament he's entered in, but eventually old age, which comes much sooner in the world of tennis, will indeed catch up with him. 

Some claim that it already has, meaning that this tournament is the perfect opportunity for Federer to put his naysayers to rest. 

Going into last year's U.S. Open, Federer had won 40-straight matches and five-straight titles. But then, in the tournament he routinely dominated, he was ousted by Juan Martin del Potro. Consequently, the questions started.

Now Federer faces a field devoid of some of the biggest names. Andy Roddick, while in the tournament field as the ninth seed, has been sick with mononucleosis. Defending champion del Potro is out with an injury. The time for Federer to grab the title back is now. 

A win would prove the doubters wrong and give him his second Grand Slam title of the year. He would be able to rub the trophy in the face of those who say he's too old and washed up.

He would be able to say he was the greatest ever. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Murray, one of the favorites to win this title based primarily on his win at the Rogers Cup in Toronto, is yet to win his first major. He’s known good results in New York, however, and this event presents one of his best chances to do so.

Here are five reasons why.

Begin Slideshow

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Serve and volley?

Ha!Ha! Ha! Serve and volley is dead!

Net play? Ha!Ha!Ha!Are you nuts?

A woman coach? Amelie Mauresmo? Ha! Ha! Ha! You must be crazy!

These are the kinds of barbs , taunts, scorn and scathing attack you would imagine that Michaël Llodra endured when he decided to seek coaching from his compatriot Mauresmo.

Changing your game plan is never easy. Remolding and remodeling it is even harder, especially late in your career. The trick lies in not changing a lot of stuff, just a few things.

Llodra works some magic

Llodra is no spring chicken. The 30-year-old has been around for eleven long years. He turned pro in 1999.

But on his day at the US Open, he left the Wimbledon finalist, Tomas Berdych frozen in his tracks.

Pete Sampras fleshed out the serve and volley approach to impel his way to fourteen Grand Slam titles.

But since then its been a massacre of this archetype at the rackets of the back court specialists. Their ability to strike the ball clean and hard from the back of the court make the adventurous think twice before embarking on the ‘serve and glide into the court’ art form Sampras patented.

But for three straight sets on Wednesday, the 1st of September, 2010, Michaël Llodra illumined that if you put on your thinking cap you can make the most powerful opponent seem positively flat-footed.

Llodra’s gambit - sticking to his strengths - paid off big time!

Berdych had no comeback to Llodra’s artistry and court craft. His inability to decode the Frenchman’s wiles had him packing his bags way too early in the tournament.

Tomas had this to say about the match: “We played three times, four times from the baseline, that’s it.I had no chance to play my tennis. That’s just well done for him.”

Llodra won sixty serve and volley points. This was out of a total of 101 points won. A remarkable sixty percent. Net approaches won = 48 of 75 = 64 percent. He was rapacious and predatory at the net.

Volleying it out

Serve and volley is an offensive ploy; slugging it out from the baseline is essentially defensive.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the aggressive quad dance provided you can execute it well.

You curve the ball into the body to cramp your foe or spit it wide so that your opponent has to stretch to get to the ball. You follow up the serve by moving into the half-court and wait for the floated ball. The return is ruthlessly dispatched to the nether regions of the court or killed at the net with a deftly executed drop shot.

It is a perfect ruse to allow you some rest and recuperation in between games. Grinding away at long rallies is more suited to the younger, fitter players; it is hard on the knees for the older guns.Besides, there’s nothing like the sheer exhilaration and joy of being able to kill off your opponent’s shot at glory from mid-court or at the net.

Shortening the points also frustrates your opponent.

The only real counter attack your opponent can effect is to try for the low percentage passing shots on either side or try to drop the ball at your feet. Lobbing is for the truly venturesome.

Closing in on the mid-court lacing reduces the angles and allows one to take the ball early. This simultaneously cuts down your adversary’s reaction time.

But it has to be executed to perfection else you could be left stranded at the net watching the green spheroid whiz past. Playing doubles is a surefire  way to improve your game on the half-court.

Sinking a titan

Llodra is a doubles specialist.And his game plan mid-court was near flawless in its execution.

It helped that the Tomas Berdych who showed up was not the Wimbledon buccaneer but his older inconsistent walking dead man shadow.

The Frenchman’s serve and volley game seeks to emulate his idol  - that elegant Swede, Stefan Edberg. Is it any wonder that he berged, submerged and bagged a Berdych? A Tomas Berdych to go , please!

Llodra may well be shown the door in the second round when he takes on Victor Hanescu but for one magical afternoon, he showed how attack is often less taxing than defense and even more ethereal.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Soderling survived a scare against little known Austrian Andreas Haider-Maurer 7-5 6-3 6-7 5-7 6-4. Berdyech, on the other hand, lost 7-5 6-4 6-4 to Llodra.

While it true that Llodra took Berdyech by surprise using his serve-and-volley tactics, but I expected at least a little fight back from a player with such great potential. I mean he has beaten Federer twice in a row (one of them coming in Wimbledon), reached the Roland Garros semifinal and the Wimbledon final.

Whether this is just minor loss or not, only time will tell if he can jump back and end his year on a high at least.

Llodra had the upper hand throughout the whole match; he certainly did not show any sign of giving up and was at full throttle throughout.

However, you expect Berdyech to go down in at least four sets or somehow show signs of a mini comeback and keep Llodra on alert.

Even after Llodra's trainer was called to treat his leg after falling awkwardly in the fourth game of the second set; nonetheless, Llodra came back even stronger to hold serve and then broke Berdyech's serve to win the second set.

What surprises me the most about players like the "Soderlings" and the "Berydechs" is that they reach their peak and defeat many top players at top events such as the Grand Slams and then when under the spotlight, they disappoint!

One example being Berydech's first round match at the U.S. Open. I find it sad for the game honestly. Although I still think they have potential for future events and who knows maybe they might add a Grand Slam or two.

Soderling had his fair share of suffering in his first round match yet came out unscathed unlike Berdyech.

I somewhat compare those two players to Del Potro, of course had he been playing, we would have seen amazing matches worth watching but that was not to be. Obviously assuming Del Potro was fit and healthy.

The one difference between Del Potro and Berdyech is that the former would have pulled of a fight back against Llodra and the latter; well, I just do not know what happened in his first round match as I am still surprised about what happened.

I still do believe that Berdyech can bounce back this year and can certainly come back with a bang.

Soderling too can improve on his first round match and he can go far this U.S. Open, that is if a big improvement is made, and who knows maybe both of them can shine in London at the ATP World Tour Finals.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

In reality, they were because Rafael Nadal survived his opening 2010 U.S. Open tennis match against unranked Teymuraz Gabashvili.

Nadal's game against Gabashvili, the 98th ranked player in the U.S. Open and 93rd ranked player in the ATP rankings, was unimaginative at best.

Afterward, Nadal made his excuses. He claimed he was taking it easy. And that the U.S. Open tennis ball was more difficult for him than those used at other Grand Slams. 

"It's the more difficult for me, especially I think because the ball," he said. "The ball is more easy to play for the players when they have the flat shots, no? That's much easier for them than for the topspin players. That's the only thing. But I won Olympics with this ball. I won in Beijing in 2005 with this ball. I can do it."

Whatever the circumstances, the shaky start was something few expected against Gabashvilli.

The highest ranking he ever has achieved is 59th. The highest he has ever gone in any Grand Slam is the fourth round this year on the clay at Roland Garros. Apart from 2006 and 2007, he has never gone past the first round at the US Open.

We have already lost eight seeds sent home in the first round, scrambling the draws considerably already even before the First Round of the Men's Draw is completed.

Of those in Roger Federer's half of the draw, four are gone. Mardy Fish (19), Novak Djokovic (3), Robin Soderling (5), and Albert Montanes (21) were all stretched to five sets.

Four are gone from the Nadal half of the draw, with Tomas Berdych (7) the highest seed out of the tournament so far. David Nalbandian (31) and Fernando Verdasco (8) were both stretched to five sets in the First Round. And Ryan Harrison, a qualifier, beat Ivan Ljubicic (15) just today.

The results from the Nadal match were not expected by many. Some writers claim he is just saving himself for the later rounds, where he has arguably lost steam due to early aggressive play.

But the reality is that Nadal has not played that well over the past few weeks, and continues to struggle.

It appears that Nadal has been warned that slow play will not be tolerated.

His game is now played at a generally faster pace.

But when the match was still very much in question, Nadal reverted to form last night.

He delayed service on several occasions, bouncing the ball incessantly. Will this be more evident in the later rounds? We will see.

In the meantime, the first match cannot give Nadal fans much hope that he will finally reach the U.S. Open Finals this year.

If anything, the excuses and unaggressive play could signal another early departure. Yet of the two halves of the draw, Nada's half is shaping up to be very weak indeed. 

If the quickly weakening draw does not save Nadal, Federer seems primed for his sixth U

U.S. Open Men's Championship without ever meeting him. And that would be a shame.

And that is The Real Truth. 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

He makes no pretense of being the Great Communicator like his rival, Roger Federer.

As pundits corner him and ask him to reflect upon the game and his place in it, Nadal simply shrugs and smiles, not really sure how to gauge his place in the game currently, or the past––or speculate about his place in the future of tennis.  

Nadal only knows and cares about the next match.

It is a point that should be well-taken because you can only look at the history of an ongoing event when it is over, not while it is still evolving.

Scientists will tell you as much. You cannot determine the results of an experiment until it has run its course. Stopping midway and assessing its progress is a waste of effort.

Nadal is all about living in the moment.  He is more action hero than philosopher or to put it more concretely, more yin than yang––more Jackie Chan than Peter O’Toole.  

Life like tennis is about playing the game––not talking about it.

That is how Nadal takes to the court, too. His bent these days is aggression because he needs to win and has discovered that you only win when you move forward and play hard––not by sitting back and waiting for opponents to capitulate.  

The nobility is in playing hard, every point and leaving nothing in reserve. There is only tomorrow if you win today.  

The Majorcan has done much of that lately––winning. He is ranked No. 1 in the world, taking over that spot on June 21, 2010 after Roger Federer failed to make it to the semifinals of the French Open and lost his hold on the ranking.  

This is the second time Nadal has succeeded Federer as the No. 1 player in the world. The first time it happened was in August of 2008 after Nadal won the French Open and Wimbledon championships––just prior to the start of the 2008 U.S.Open. 

Nadal is 24 years of age and has won eight Major Finals––five French Open titles, two Wimbledon titles and one Australian Open title. But there is still a world out there to conquer, other championships to win, including the upcoming U.S. Open––the one Grand Slam Championship Nadal has never won.  

In fact the Majorcan has not even made it into the finals at Arthur Ashe in Queens.

Winning in New York would give Nadal a career slam since he would hold at least one championship at each grand slam event. It is a goal Nadal aspires to achieve and winning it would put him in rare company.

It is a difficult goal because New York offers the fastest hard courts of all the majors. It remains the surface that seems to give Nadal the most trouble.

But challenge is what spurs Nadal on and makes his life complete. He focuses on what is important to him––winning the next match and making his way through the draw as far as he can.

Still the temptations to talk about Nadal’s records and his place in the game of tennis are overwhelming for the media during interviews because, there are so many firsts and high moments to talk about:

Nadal Owned Records:

(1) French Open - Nadal won five titles in six years from 2005-2010

(2) French Open - Nadal won 31 consecutive matches from 2005-2009

(3) Nadal is the only player to reach nine different ATP Masters tournament finals.

(4) Nadal remains the only player to have lost just one game in an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 final (Monte Carlo 2010: 6–0, 6–1)

(5) Nadal is the only player to win all three clay court Masters events in the same year (2010).

(6) He is only player to win 3 consecutive Masters titles, regardless of surface.

(7) He is only player to win at least three ATP World Tour Masters 1000 in a season for 4 consecutive years.

(8) Nadal owns the leading winning percentage of .833 in ATP Masters Tournaments since 1990.

(9) Nadal has the most consecutive years winning at least ONE Masters title - 6 (2005-2010)

(10) Nadal won the Monte-Carlo - Rome double for - five years (2005,2006,2007,2009,2010)

(11) Nadal holds the longest single-surface winning streak (clay): 81 matches (11 April 2005 – 20 May 2007)

(12) Nadal is the only male player to have won French Open, Wimbledon, and Olympic gold medal in the same year (2008)

(13) Nadal won the most singles titles in a single season as a teenager: 11 (2005).

(14) Nadal won 24 consecutive matches, the longest winning streak of any teenager in the open era, in 2005

(15) Nadal holds the record for the most consecutive weeks as World Number 2: 160 weeks

Nadal’s records on clay continue to grow.  In 2010 he literally dominated the clay court season, winning all three Masters 1000 clay court tournaments plus the French Open. Nadal uses the clay court season to build his rankings points and bolster his confidence.  

Spending at least half of 2009 injured after losing in the fourth round of the French Open and trying to keep pace on the hard courts, starting with the Australian Open in 2010, Nadal sprinted onto the clay and never looked back, sweeping aside the competition like they were Tokyo and he were Godzilla.  

There was no one who could stand in his way on clay. That extended to the finals and beyond at Wimbledon––especially when Federer faded in the quarterfinals.  

But this summer, on hard courts as he began to ready himself for his campaign at the 2010 U.S. Open, Nadal has not found the winning combination on his strokes. He feels a step slow in reaching the ball which makes him a micro-second slow in hitting the ball.  

Nadal lost to Andy Murray in the semifinals at the Roger’s Cup in Montreal and then lost to Marcos Baghdatis in the quarterfinals at Cincinnati.  He had not played at all since Wimbledon, fearing injuring or exacerbating the problem with tendinitis in his knees.

The U.S. Open is now beginning for Nadal––the only slam he has not won. The Majorcan will be focused on winning in New York, just as he always concentrates on winning. That is his mission in life, to win major titles, to win any title of any tennis event he enters.

Not to talk about his place in the history of the game.  To win.  That is what Nadal is all about.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Now, if we just go a few years back to 2008 and then continue until just a few months ago, Serena was dominating the grand slams.  

She won the US Open, Wimbledon (twice), and Australian Open (twice), with a finals showing at Wimbledon, a semifinal appearance at the US Open, and quarterfinal outings at the French Open.

Flip back to 2003, and Serena had made the semifinals of the last eight slams she entered, winning six of them.  

And then, during the summer hard court season, Serena had a freak accident.  While dancing with her friends in boots, she felt a pop in her knee, and was immediately sent to a hospital.  She was forced to skip the US Open, which she would have probably won.

Now go back to the present, and the US Open is already in progress.  And Serena Williams is out.

She had been dominating the grand slams, but a freak accident involving shattered glass left Serena unable to compete.  Again, Serena was the favorite to win the tournament.

After 2003, Serena Williams went in a slump from 2004-2006.  Serena won the Australian Open, and made the final at Wimbledon, but other than that, there was not much Serena did that was quite impressive.  

In fact, Serena had such a terrible season in 2006 that she was ranked in the 80s when the 2007 Australian Open started.

Will Serena Williams go in a slump, and if she does, will she able to come back before her retirement.  

Only time will tell, but do I think Serena will falter?  No.  After all, Serena is Serena, a special human being.  Never one to give up.  Does that sound familiar?

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

There is plenty of first-rate tennis to be savored––but these are the most compelling matches that promise the tighest action.

Ana Ivanovic vs. Jie Zheng (21) Second Round

Jie Zheng of China and Ana Ivanovic of Serbia meet in the second round of the U.S. Open on Wednesday morning at 11 a.m. on Arthur Ashe Stadium. The two have met three times with Zheng winning the last two in 2008 at Beijing and at Wimbledon.  

This match should go a long way to show how far back Ivanovic has come this summer on her road back to the top of the women’s game.

Last year Zheng made it to the third round of the U.S. Open losing to Nadia Petrova. This year Zheng made it all the way to the semifinals of the 2010 Australian Open where she finally met and was defeated by Justine Henin. The lady from China proved herself to be a fierce competitor on the hard courts.  

In Montreal Zheng lost in the quarterfinals to Svetlana Kuznetsova, after defeating Elena Dementieva in the previous round.  Zheng will come into this match ready to play and Ivanovic, who has also enjoyed a good summer, should be ready to run.  

Prediction: Zheng will win this second round contest. 

Janko Tipsarevic vs. Andy Roddick (9) Second Round 

It is always fun to watch Tipsarevic play against a top seed because the top-ranked players seem to bring out the best in the Serb.

The two combatants will meet on Arthur Ashe Stadium in the second night match where Andy Roddick will find relief from the extreme heat of the day matches.

The Serb Tipsarevic has been suffering from injury of late just as Roddick has suffered with a bout of mild mononucleosis.  

They have played each other twice on the grounds of Wimbledon with Tipsarevic upsetting Roddick in second round in 2008 and Roddick dispatching the Serb in the first round in 2006.  

We all remember what a match Tipsarevic waged against Federer at the 2008 Australian Open, taking the Swiss to five long sets before Federer finally pulled it out.  

Don’t count on Roddick having an easy time putting the Serb away under the lights. This match could be quite a tussle for the American.

Prediction: Roddick will win in four.

Gisela Dulko vs. Victoria Azarenka (10) Second Round

Dulko from Argentina meets Azarenka from Belarus on the Grandstand Court at 11 a.m. They have met each other four times on clay––each winning twice.

Dulko won most recently at the 2010 French Open. 

During Monday's action, Azarenka defeated Monica Niculescu of Romania in the opening round 6-0, 5-7, 6-1.

Gisela Dulko defeated Angelique Kerber of Germany 6-3, 6-1 to win her opener.

The Argentine has not played exceptionally well on the hard courts so far in 2010.  

Azarenka seems to be on track to do well at the U.S. Open. She is healthy and seems to be ready to compete, including holding her temper. 

Prediction: Azarenka in three.

Igor Andreev vs. Gael Monfils (17) Second Round

The Russian Andreev will meet the Frenchman Monfils on the Grandstand––fourth match of the day.

Andreev came through against Horacio Zeballos of Argentina in four tightly contested sets 6-3, 4-6, 7-6, 6-3.  

Monfils barely survived his opener against Robert Kendrick of the U.S. 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4. In the blistering heat of the day, it was a survival contest.  

Monfils did not seem especially sharp, coming back from injury without many matches under his belt.  

Andreev has the capabilities to be a dangerous player.  

In their head to head, Andreev leads 3-2, winning their most recent contest at the 2008 Rogers Cup. But the Russian’s ranking has plummeted lately to 121.  

Prediction: Expect Monfils to come out on top in this one, barely.

Sybille Bammer vs. Elena Dementieva (12)

Elena Dementieva defeated Olga Govortosova of Belarus 6-1, 6-2 while Sybille Bammer of Austria defeated Zuzana Ondraskova of the Czech Republic, 7-5, 6-0 in their opening rounds on Monday.

The two players will meet on Wednesday on Court 11, during the second match of the day, following the contest between Ryan Harrison of the U.S. and Ivan Ljubicic of Croatia.

Dementieva leads in their head to head 4-1 with Bammer’s only win at the 2007 U.S. Open during the round of 32.  The Russian is trying to make her way back into the women’s top ten after suffering some setbacks due to injury.  

Prediction: Dementieva should win this one in straight sets.

Other contests to watch:

On Arthur Ashe: 

#3 Venus Williams (USA) vs. Rebecca Marino (Canada) - 3rd match of the day - Second Round - Venus should win this one without too much trouble.

#2 Kim Clijsters (Belgium) vs. Sally Peer (Australia) - First evening match - Second Round - Clijsters should have little difficulty defeating the unseeded Peer.

On Court 11:

Gilles Simon (France) vs. Donald Young (USA) - 3rd Match of the Day - First Round.  Don't miss this one––it should be barn burner!  

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

The excitement of moving down to the lower levels in Ashe Stadium at 11 p.m. to cheer on your favorite player with a few thousand of your closest friends is unmatched in the sport.

Long five-setters have often been known to go on until the wee hours of the morning, forcing those in attendance to forget that they have to be at work in the morning.

Let's take a look at the 10 best night matches in tournament history.

Begin Slideshow

The reason, according to some analysts, has to do with the fact that the courts have been slowing down for some time. Worried that huge servers would dominate those events, all surfaces were slower by 2003.

In 2002, Wimbledon altered its grass, creating a thicker, more durable turf that slows the ball down and allows it to bounce higher, rather than skid, and baseliners have ruled ever since. Jim Curley, tournament director at the U.S. Open, said organizers began slowing their own courts down in 2002, adding extra sand to the paint, and did so again before the 2003 tournament to make the court fair for baseliners and serve-and-volleyers alike.

If you watch the US Open this year, pay special attention to whether the court takes spin more easily. If you think it does, you are not alone. It looks like the "fastest" surface in the Grand Slams has gotten slower this year. And, if so, look for better results by those players who are more at the baseline, and those who hit their strokes with the most wicked spin.

"We're trying to come up with a fair field of play for the integrity of the competition," said Mr. Curley. He said Mr. Roddick complained to him once that the courts had become too slow.

Are the courts even slower today? Have they been slowed even more this year, in a second slow down effort?

Some say the clay at Roland Garros, site of the French Open, was sped up which allegedly allowed more players to succeed on the surface and in the tournament. Fans of Rafael Nadal contend that this difference occurred in 2009. The evidence is that this has been occurring for some time, not just in 2009.

At the same time, the differences between the grass, clay, and hard courts featured at the main Grand Slam tournaments have narrowed. At Wimbledon, which has been played on grass since its inception in 1877, the organizers tweaked the composition of the grass in 2001 to make it more durable. As a result, the notoriously quick surface became much slower. Wimbledon is no longer a serve and volleyer’s paradise—Rafael Nadal won there last year by slugging it out from the baseline. Meanwhile, the clay courts at the French Open, historically the slowest surface, have actually gotten faster in recent years.

But while the US Open slowed its courts measurably in 2002 and 2003, this year's tournament has begun to show signs that the paint got another tweak this year, adding even more sand to make the courts even slower and more susceptible to spin. The best evidence came on the first day when Robin Soderling struggled to win against unranked Andreas Haider-Maurer. While Soderling was arguably not at his best and Haider-Maurer was clearly playing very good tennis, the ball seemed slower and more prone to spin. 

Of course, baseliner Lleyton Hewitt lost, so does a close win or loss prove anything about the court? Probably not.

Yet, because of the signs in statements and on the court, this should be the year for Nadal if there ever was one. Although plenty of competition waits for Nadal, the results so far suggest that baseline play could be even more prevalent at this year's US Open. Federer, however, is trying to play more aggressively based on coaching from his newly hired coach Paul Annacone.

So are the US Open courts slower this year? It is hard to know. There is no information released by the US Open on the amount of silica used in the paint for the top layer of DecoTurf, the surface used by the US Open since 1978. So we may not be able to tell from any official word during the tournament.

Federer for one claims that the surfaces are continuing to slow. 

"And as all the courts kind of slow down—indoors, hard courts, even grass— it's logical that today, if you're at the top, you can win on any surface. That's what he's been able to do. (He) still maybe struggles a little bit on the faster hard courts. But, then again, he won the Australian Open already, he's been multiple times in the semis of the US Open, so that is stuff that he does now quite comfortably."

Is this Nadal's year? It is impossible to tell.

That is why the 2010 US Open will prove one of the greatest in memory. And that is The Real Truth.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com