by Pete Bodo

Mornin', everyone, and a fine one it is again.

A few days ago, I had an interesting conversation with Sven Groeneveld, who heads up the novel and productive Adidas group coaching effort. Sven has coached an impressive list of outstanding players, including Mary Pierce, Michael Stich, Nathalie Dechy, Greg Rusedski, Fernando Verdasco and, most recently,  Ana Ivanovic. BTW, Ana is back with the Adidas program after a patchy experience with Craig Kardon (formerly Martina Navratilova's coach). And Darren Cahill has joined Gil Reyes, that other member of team Agassi, on the Adidas coaching roster. Those are Cahill, Reyes and Groeneveld (L to R) in this photo.

It turns out that Sven and our mutual friend, tennis insider Lisa Sommermeier, had both read the on-again, off-again series I started on coaching (it makes me think I ought to continue it), in which I wondered why tennis coaches - who run the gamut from manipulative opportunists with precious little to offer  to distinguished Grand Slam enablers - didn't have some kind of official organization, or registry. I can think of a dozen ways in which an official organization, like the players, tournaments, umpires, and even press already has (and let's not forget that strong organization of teaching pros, the USPTR), would be a welcome addition to the growing infrastructure of our sport.

It turns out that Sven had been thinking along the same lines, and he already has an interactive website that functions as a virtual employment agency for coaches. It's called Orangecoach.com. The big news Sven wanted to share with me is that this is merely Stage 1 of a 2 stage effort - the second part will consist of creating a formal organization or registry of coaches. It will not only help coaches and players find each other, but also give coaches, those lone operators, an organization that will set guidelines, create opportunities (like sponsorship deals), and give coaches the backing of the same kind of official, institutional voice that others can fall back on in times of need.

To pick a simple example, right now any charge of inappropriate behavior of any kind against a coach is simply a "he said, she/he said" affair, and who would want to be the coach in that scenario - especially if it were one of the all too common partnerships of a young female player and an older male coach?  Moreover, the WTA commitment to on-court coaching means that coaches could potentially supplement their income with sponsorship deals on a less haphazard basis. "I was never for the on-court coaching experiment," Sven told me. "But it's here and there's no reason not to take advantage of it."

Largely, though, Sven sees "job security" as the most critical issue for coaches. He points out that coaches come and go randomly, usually at the mercy of the players for whom they work. When that player retires, or moves on, the coach is back at Square One. He or she has no real way beyond networking and personal salesmanship of staying in the game. "Not too many coaches stay in the game for more than five years," Sven said. "I want to try to find a way to enable legitimate coaches to stay in the game. For example, if the player I've coached for three years decides to move on, right now I don't even have access to my workplace - the tournaments. If we had a certification process, the members of our registry could stay in the game and enjoy the same benefits as other tennis professionals."

A registry would also enable the organization to police its membership and even institutionalize the background checks that are a reasonable burden. Sven objected to the heavy-handed way the official game instituted its intrusive background checks in a panicked response to abuse and gambling scandals, but has no problem with the basic concept. "It would be part of a general certification process that would take place in stages," Sven said. "People would know what the system expects and get comfortable with it."

Sven also noted that academies, representation firms, and even manufacturers (like Adidas) have increasingly close ties to coaches, and use them in increasingly inventive and diverse wasy (as scouts, for example). The coaches need to be better informed on everything from the available opportunities to the general task-by-task pay scale.

I think this plan will work, partly because sponsors already have greater grasp of inventive ways to use coaches. The coaches are not only vital to the players on-court success, they're an increasingly significant go-between with other wings of the game, like the media. And a coach is a pipeline to a player. I've learned over time that if you have a good relationship with a player's coach, you're more likely to develop the same with a player.

I hope Sven pulls this off.

by Pete Bodo

Long before Andy Roddick climbed back up from the bottom of a love-40 well on his first service game of the third set, long before Andy Murray flubbed a routine backhand off a Roddick service return to go down 2-4 in the ensuing tiebreaker, and long before that great backhand stab volley that staved off a potential break and eventually enabled Roddick to hold at 3-all in the fourth, before all that, you could see that Roddick was a different man today than he had been in some of his earlier matches here - a different man, in fact, from the one we've known most of these years.

For the Andy Roddick who ambulated across the lime-green lawn of Wimbledon's Centre Court was not the emotional hurricane or the swaggering gunslinger, nor the smoke-belching ace machine - blowing out his breath in great big puffs, like a steam engine - of days gone by. Today, Roddick's presence on the court evoked the single word least likely to come up as the answer to "Andy Roddick" in a game of word association: serenity.

Roddick, a man of 26-plus years who often seems as merrily adolescent as a flip-flop wearing teenager in camo skate shorts, was strikingly quiescent, and as shuttered and focused on the task at hand as a man entranced, and therefore operating in a state suggesting that he'd shed all awareness and fear of every tennis player's greatest enemy: himself.

All the familiar mannerisms were there: he tugged at the brim of his white Lacoste baseball cap until the left side of the brim bore a neat brown smudge the size of a silver dollar; that jack-in-the box serve, with the curiously (and iconoclastically) quick knee bend; that imperious sweep of the racket with which he summons a ball boy to fetch him his towel - all those were the same.

But before each of those habits, and others, seemed outward manifestation of an inward hurry; no matter how he tried, you always sensed that inner restlessness percolating in Andy, that compulsion to bite a nail, tap his heel rapidly while seated, serve a brobdignian fault and then, with almost dismissive haste, load up and pop the second - perhaps so quickly that he wasn't quite sure what to do next for lack of foresight.

Today, though, he telegraphed a purposefulness that obliterated any urgency he might have felt, in a state most comparable to the sort of hyper-clarity movie makers strive to convey by employing slow motion. And in this state Andy was chillingly in command of his raw power and absolutely the master of his emotions. All of it added it up to an inspired performance Friday at the All England Club, as Roddick broke all of Britain's heart by halting Andy Murray's drive to become the first male British subject to contest a Wimbledon final in over 70 years. Roddick won, 6-4, 4-6, 7-6 (7), 7-6 (5) in a wonderful match that nobody will ever confuse with one of those Wimbledon bludgeonings that leave pundits and spectators caviling about the inordinately large role of power in grass-court tennis.

Contemplating his state of mind later, Roddick fell back on less high-falutin' language, saying: "Yeah, you know, I'm just trying to stay the course. I'm just going about it.. . .I mean, I knew going in that getting all hyped up, and up and down, especially in an atmosphere that probably wasn't gonna be super favorable to me, wasn't probably the way to go. And especially, you know, he was probably gonna have the edge as far as, you know, kind of the adrenaline and the emotion. So I kind of just wanted to stay the course. I was fully aware that there might be ups and downs. You know, I just wanted to kind of keep the same face regardless."

Murray's own analysis was even more meat and potatoes than Roddick's. He said, "He served great.  Served really, really well in the tiebreaks. I think he maybe missed two first serves. The second one wasn't until 6-4 in the (fourth-set) tiebreak (a point that Roddick lost when he charged the net and Murray whistled a passing shot by him). He was serving really well at the start. And I had a few chances, you know, in the first tiebreak. I had chances early in the third set, too. I didn't take them. . . Like I say, if someone serves 130 miles an hour consistently throughout the match, you know, in the high like 75s to 80%, it's very tough to break them, especially on a court like this that's quick."

Murray meant no offense, but it would be a mistake to write this result off as a triumph of the serve. Roddick did everything well today, and some things extremely well (approach shots, volleys, backhands beautifully modulated to suit their specific, momentary purpose - which in this case included a higher-than-usual number of deep, hard drives). And for that reason, the response of the British hordes in the grounds and those comfortably, if uneasily, ensconced at Centre Court is best described as resigned.

Murray seemed just a wee bit tight at certain points in the match; the wonder is that Roddick, who indulged his appetite for drama plenty in his match with Lleyton Hewitt, did not. His determination burned with a blue jet, not the customary orange flames. The match seemed like the ultimate reward for a player who, unlike most of his peers, really began understanding and working on his game only after he'd won his first and thus far only Grand Slam title - and after he'd briefly held the world No. 1 ranking.

Today, all those tributaries in his game and his psychic approach to it flowed together to produce a powerful, swift, undeniable river. The backhand was used tactfully; his movement was superb; his shot selection suggested that he understands the meaning of that old saw, Discretion is the better part of valor. "You know, you don't go back to a Wimbledon final by accident. It certainly is a process. And it's probably been a longer process than I would have liked. But, you know, I've enjoyed, you know, everything that has kind of gone into it."

But most of all today, there was that explosive serve that Roddick used wisely, not just profligately. Murray's quick-take analysis is a little deceiving; in fact, he out-aced Roddick, 25-20, and the percentage of unreturned serves delivered by Roddick was just one point higher, at 36 percent. The most glaring disparity was in first-serve conversion percentage: Roddick converted 75% to Murray's 52%. Each man lost just two service games. One stat that should be of great interest to Murray is that Roddick won 16 of 21 serve-and-volley points and a total of 48 of 143 points he played at the net. Murray didn't serve-and-volley once, even though he won 15 of the 20 points he played at the net.

One of the subtle side effects of the way Roddick has struggled to stay in the hunt for majors these past few years, forever experimenting and developing and trying new strategies (especially in matches with his nemesis and opponent in Sunday's final, Roger Federer), is that he's developed a highly refined sense of what works and what doesn't, and, more important, a much wider comfort zone against any opponent's wiles. As he said: "I think maybe now more than ever I can vary it and maybe have some confidence playing out of my element a little bit. You know, today I was able to come in, I think it was 68 times. It wasn't, you know, kind of all-in on a pair of twos, I felt like I was doing the right things and picking the right shots, so that's an encouraging sign."

A year ago almost to the day, Roddick left Wimbledon in a state of disarray and confusion following a dispiriting third-round loss. He'd opened his heart to his then fiancé and now wife, Brooklyn Decker, about his doubts and misgivings in London before they returned to the U.S. to spend the Fourth of July weekend in North Carolina with her family. Passing through the Austin airport on his way home from that celebration, Andy caught a glimpse of television and saw that the Wimbledon final between Federer and Rafael Nadal, which ought to have been long over, was still on - the fifth set was just starting.

"I didn't want to watch, because it's tough watching when you wish you were there - especially with the kind of mental state I was in at that point. It hurt to watch. But it was the match that it was (an epic), and there was no chance of me getting out of the airport before it finished."

We don't know what role that epic played in reviving Andy's appetite for tennis, but those heart-to-hearts with his intended helped, albeit not in the expected way. "She didn't really know much about tennis," Andy said. "So she thought I was playing real great."

Did she convince him, to borrow Andy's new catch-phrase, "to stay the course?"

"Yeah," Andy replied. "She thought I looked cute in the shorts."

It's good to see that there's still some of the old Andy left.

By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

How is the TWibe doing tonight? I've had yet another rough week, marked by deadlines, sleep deprivation, and not nearly enough tennis. Thanks to the 4th of July, though, my weekend started early (did everyone else in the States have the day off, too?), so today alone, I've been able to make up for both the lack of sleep and tennis!

Speaking of the 4th, how do all the TW Yanks celebrate the occasion? It's not my kind of holiday - as a tee-totaling vegetarian, I can't really partake in the beer/brat celebrations that most Americans seem so fond of! I do like fireworks, though, so I'm looking forward to the displays in my area. Does anyone have fun weekend plans? Independence Day traditions?

Members of our TennisWorld > Real World Facebook group, take note that TWiber Ali C has posted links to some fabulous Wimbledon photo albums. Go have a look! Also, a "USO 2009 - Who is going?" discussion topic is now posted, and it looks like plenty of TWibers are making their way to New York (I wish I were one of 'em!). Closer to the tournament, let's coordinate a TW get-together here in the Deuce Club, yeah?

Last week, I presented some press conference gems from week one of Wimbledon (or round one, actually) and asked you to share your favorite quotes, as well; as promised, I'm calling for quotes once more, this time from week two! Here are a few to get you started:

Serena Williams

Q. Six years ago when you were at the top, she was No. 15, you beat her here. What memories do you have of that match, if any, 2003 at Wimbledon?

A: Yeah, I don't remember that. I'm gonna YouTube it, though.

Venus Williams

Q. I gather you've now joined Twitter. Serena has obviously persuaded you. You said you celebrated your last win with cranberry sauce.

A: Yes. Why?

Q. Well, no. I was wondering how you're going to celebrate this one.

A: Cranberry sauce. I'm actually a candy addict. That's the closest I can get to, like, sugar, is cranberry sauce and raisins. So those are the two things that when I celebrate, it's with cranberry sauce.

Q. Just on its own?

A: Yes. It's a little strange, I know. I happen to like it.

[I loved this comment from Pete in his "Williams Family Woodshed" post this week: Okay, so the British press is Wimbledentric, and wouldn't know Roland Garros from an obscure French aviator. But the way Venus and Serena - always lightning rods for disgruntlement or criticism - had them eating out of their hands confirmed the Any Questions? nature of the way they've been playing here during the fortnight. The above quotes are perfect examples!]

Andy Roddick (of course)

Q. I understand you're quite friendly with Justin Timberlake and that he came to see you on Saturday.

A: Uhm, I've never met him (laughter.)

Q. He likes you.

A: But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Dinara Safina

Q. Where did these 15 double‑faults come from?

A: 15? I thought it was much more (smiling).

Roger Federer

Q. You played Haas on clay, and maybe clay is not your favorite surface.

A: I'm a clay court specialist, if you haven't realized yet (smiling).

Ivo Karlovic

Q. How tough is it mentally just to keep serve, not to be broken? Is it a very mental step you have to make?

A: No, it is easy for me (smiling).

Q. Can you talk a little bit about your celebration at the end? It was a bit unusual.

A: Yeah, it was my victory dance.

Q. What does it mean, and where did it come from?

A: No, I don't know. It just came because I was happy. I don't know.

Q. So it wasn't planned?

A: No, actually it was planned because all of my matches here after I was doing that. So yeah.

Elena Dementieva

Q. Just a question away from the match. You're named as one of the stylishly dressed players on court. Who would you regard as the most stylish?

A: You mean this season alone?

Q. In terms of dress.

A: I really like my dress (laughing), but I think Venus has a very nice dress, as well.

Novak Djokovic

Q. You seem to be more serious these days than you used to be.

A: Am I (smiling)?

Oh, how I'll miss the British press!

As Wimbledon draws to a close, I thought I'd take some time to reflect on the tournament - and not just this year's. I've made it known several times that Wimbledon is my favorite Slam, my favorite tournament, heck - one of my favorite anythings!

I know, it sounds a little extreme. But Wimbledon's been a part of my life since I was a kid. The minute I catch even a glimpse of Centre Court, I'm flooded with memories.

As I mentioned in my maiden DC post, my eldest sister Jeannette was the one who introduced Wimbledon (and tennis, really, as I hadn't known tennis outside of this Slam) into my life. She'd wake up for "Breakfast at Wimbledon," and my other sister Elizabeth and I would do the same, at first just to spend time with her. (One of her favorite parts of the experience was checking out which royals were in attendance. A Princess Di appearance was always a treat!) Soon enough, though, I was hooked on the tennis itself, not just the sisterly bonding. And then as schooling and travels forced Jeannette to be away from home more often, I'd find myself waking up early for "Breakfast at Wimbledon" all by my lonesome. Now, I cared.

I remember those mornings like they were yesterday. Groggily plopping down in front of the television in my PJs, humming along to the familiar Wimbledon on NBC music (and missing that high note), drooling at the sight of the strawberries 'n' cream being served (were they as yummy as they looked?).

It was from all those years of Wimbledon-watching that Steffi Graf became my absolute favorite player, male or female. The two (Wimbledon and Steffi) are inextricably linked - in my head, anyway - and of all the Wimbledon matches I've witnessed, one that stands out more than most others is the 1993 final between Steffi and Jana Novotna. Of course, it saw Steffi take the championship aided by Jana's epic meltdown. At the time, I was thrilled - and relieved! - that my favorite got through the match. Now, though, I have a far greater appreciation for what Jana endured; I would've sobbed on the Duchess of Kent, too.

Then there was Wimbledon 2001. I was out of the country that summer and couldn't find coverage of the tournament anywhere so I had Jeannette tape it all. I adored Patrick Rafter, so you can just imagine how ecstatic I was to learn that he had advanced to the final. My family and I were fond of Goran Ivanisevic (and his quirks!), as well, so it was a perfect finals scenario. But of course, as I was going to miss it, I instructed my sister to tape it and to Shhhh!, keep the result to herself. I remember doing whatever I could to avoid so much as a mention of sports in the news, so I'd be able to watch the tape in suspense, as if it were live. I successfully made it through the end of the trip without hearing/seeing a thing about the match ... until I got on the plane and saw Goran's mug on the sports page of a newspaper. I almost cried - both because of the spoiler and because my guy lost! When I learned how hard-fought and celebrated the match was, too, it made me all the more wistful for having missed it.

I grew up with Wimbledon and am no less enchanted with it now than I was when it all started. The verdant lawns, the whites, the reserved crowd. It's all singular to this tournament. And it brings out the true tennis fan in me like nothing else. In fact, I probably wouldn't be here today, typing to y'all in a tennis blog, if it weren't for Wimbledon. (I better not start tearing up. No crying in blogging, Jackie!)

Now I'd like to hear from you! You can take this in whatever direction you like, but here's a bit of guidance:

1) What's your Wimbledon? That is, is there an event that's important to you, that you look forward to every year? It can be something as frivolous as a tennis tournament, or maybe it's more serious, like a volunteer activity you partake in annually. How did the "tradition" start, and what about it moves you?

2) If you'd like to stick with the Wimbledon theme, instead, go for it! Tell us about your Wimbledon history, as I did. If you're relatively new to the tournament, feel free to comment on this year's happenings alone. How have you been watching? TV or computer? Home or work? (I won't tell.) Have you had to adjust your sleep/work schedule to catch the action?

And how about handing out some awards? Here are a few ideas to get you started ...

• Most Cringe-Inducing Wipeout Award (Self-explanatory - and I shouldn't make light of the slips, some of which have resulted in legitimate injuries, but we've just had so darn many!)
• Who Needs Color? Award (Who rocked the Wimbledon white the best?)
• ??? Award (This is for those What the ... ? moments. Nominees include Dr. Ivo's celebratory dance, the "bump" between Lisicki and Wozniacki, the spotting of several There's no way he/she is actually a tennis fan celebrities ... )
  
• "Best" of 5/"Best" of 3 Award (Obviously, this goes to the best men's and women's matches that went the distance.)

Please use this space to camp out until the action resumes in the AM. Have fun!

Mornin'. Y'all know that the press, especially here in the UK, can be especially tough, and that's especially true for women players. The oft-repeated question in the presser for any woman who's lost a tough match is, "Does this loss really  hurt?"

The next question frequently is, "Does it hurt more than etc. etc. etc."

This is followed by, "Exactly how hurt are you?"

And so on. . .

Granted, it just doesn't pay to get into an antagonistic relationship with the press, no matter how tempting or justified it may be. The reporters have the access to the soapbox, the player doesn't.  But when a player truly let's his or her "racket do the talking" (in the crude, oxymoronic phrasing), it's possible to push back. So while Dinara Safina wasn't well-positioned to engage the press after she was blown out of Wimbledon by Venus Williams, the winner certainly was, given the mortifying margin by which she won (6-1,6-0).

So yesterday Venus showed not just a lot of class and compassion in her defense of women's tennis, she made her point with icy calm, directly engaging a critical pressman (I don't know who it was) with a steely gaze that even her male peers would be hard put to match. Here's the heart of the exchange:

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?

A:  Why do you put it like that?

Q.  You played very well. 

A:  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. 

A: So you're trying to be down basically.

Q: Not on women's tennis, no.

A: Okay, because I don't deal with down at all.

Q.  It's not down. 

A:  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. . .

A:  Thanks.

Wow, Venus, this ain't your first rodeo, is it?

Note that the reporter at  first backed down, then cleverly tried to make the issue all about Safina, then lapsed into protesting his innocence, then, well. . . completely caved.  Venus never let him of the hook, as so many players will do in their eagerness to get back into less controversial territory. As smackdowns go, it was nothing less than magisterial.  The reporter may have had a point, but it was meant to be shoved like a shiv between the ribs of the WTA, and Venus called him on it.

So my question is, who would have thought Venus would be such an apostle for the WTA game? Wasn't this the same woman who, not so long ago, was thought by many to be in conspiracy with her sister, Serena, to ruin the women's game?

Beyond that, my own feeling is that the current fault-line in the ranking system is an unavoidable product of the very specific and highly unusual circumstances, and it behooves commentators to approach the subject with honesty, acknowledging that the no. 1 ranked player at any given moment is not necessarily the best player, nor is he or she advertised as such. The analogy isn't entirely accurate, but does anyone really think that Rafael Nadal ought to be ranked no. 1 among the men today? Of course not. With a final and win in the only two majors already decided this year, Roger Federer is the "true" no. 1. Yet nobody is asking him if it's "fair" that Nadal is ranked no. 1.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the rankings are a consistency rating system, most useful for seedings. Anybody who covers tennis ought to understand the intent of the rankings, and recognize that the top-rated player isn't necessarily the "best" or even most succesful player by the standard most pros embrace: Grand Slam victories. And this, too: the players just show up and play; they don't make the system, they operate with it.

Enjoy the tennis, everyone!

PS - If you want to see any image in this and all subsequent posts in full-size in a new window, just click on it. . .

- Pete

-- As at 1:35pm, an Overflow post is up - Andrew

Overflow

by Pete Bodo

During the last half of the third set today, Serena Williams looked as if having to run for one more Elena Dementieva laser to the forehand corner might cause her to tip over, tongue flapping and thighs (and those are some thighs) twitching. But even if that had happened, you get the feeling that some new, fresh incarnation of Serena would have drifted up like a wraith from a nostril or eardrum, materializing into flesh and blood as it snatched the racket from the turf and took up a position at the baseline with a lusty shout of, "Show me what you got, sucker!"

That's Serena, nominally the "baby" of the Williams family. The more debilitating a match becomes, the more endangered she appears to be, the more likely Serena is to defy the laws of physics and biology and find a way to win. There's only one explanation, and it's para-physical, para-psychological, para-logical and even para-ludicrous. She's a spirit-driven person, and that spirit operates with regal disregard for whatever else is going on in Serena's muscles or lungs. Like the spirit said, Show me what you got. . .

This was a match of high quality, and most of us are going to click and drag it right from the mental inbox into the Great Matches folder. It was also, at 2:50, the longest Wimbledon women's semifinal on record. The final score was 6-7 (4), 7-5, 8-6, and 'Lena was in it all the way. Later, she said, It's not about serve or forehand and backhand, it's about, you know, winning spirit. And she (Serena) has a great fighting spirit. "

That 'Lena wasn't cowed by that spirit (she rightfully pointed out that she had the spirit today as well) was born out by the stats. The official scorecard is awash in "D"s and "A"s (for, respectively, deuce and ad) and 'Lena fought her way to ten break points. She only converted three of those, but the other seven weren't entirely errors of commission (Serena was five of 12 in break point conversions).

Serena had the high heat going today, and clocked scores of aces and unreturned first serves. It isn't like she just served her way out of uncomfortable break-point situations, either. She was an equal opportunity thunder goddess, raining down 37 unreturned first serves (from 70 attempts) and 20 aces, leading Dementieva to remark, with a completely straight face: "You know, I wasn't sure if it's Serena or Andy Roddick on the other side, 125 all the time."

Serena agreed with the analysis, saying, "Yeah, I definitely owe this win to my serve. You know, I lost serve a couple times. But, you know, when it was key and it was time for me to hold serve, I was able to hold serve. You know, I always had a nice couple aces that was really able to clinch on very key points. I thought that I served well, so I was very excited about that."

And those of you who remember Dementieva as player always hunting trouble with her own serve may be surprised to hear that her delivery was more asset than liability: She hit an impressive 24 unreturned first serves (72 attempts), and more unreturned second serves (12 of 34 to Serena's 8 of 48). And if Dementieva's first serve conversion percentage was better (63% to 57 %), Serena's serve, on the whole, was a more menacing and useful tool - although one Dementieva delivery is etched in my memory because it suggested that the idea of redemption is alive and well.

Dementieva nailed that second serve at a key moment in the second set. Serena, who had time and again profitably leaned to the forehand side, looking for the wide serve, did so once again - whereupon Dementieva tagged a 110 mph rocket down the center stripe for an ace. This was the final, delicious fruit of a long, dogged, and often agonizing re-tooling process for the woman once legendary for her service troubles - and I mean long as in Russian long, long as in Tolstoy long. As 'Lena said when asked about the process, "It was a long process, I cannot tell you in a few words right now." Heck with that process; as Serena said: "I've never seen her serve so well in her life. . . you know, I think her second serves were in the upper nineties, sometimes hundreds. To keep that up for three sets is not very easy."

So let's connect the dots: We have a match with two women serving superbly, with great power and placement, and employing the shot to bail them out of trouble, and we end up with an 8-6 in the third epic. This may be all you need to know if you've ever wondered why the women produce so many woeful or simply nonsensical matches. Serena may have had just a shade more fighting spirit today, but both women had the spirit of thunder.

Anyway, that brilliant second serve of Dementieva's enabled her to hold and, a point later, to go up 4-3, with a set in hand. It was crunch time for Serena; was this going to be one of the great Wimbledon upsets, or a match for the ages? In the very next game, perilously close to a break, Serena may have saved her tournament - with an assist from the cold optics of Hawkeye.

With Serena down 30-40, 'Lena worked her out of position, smacked one deep to the forehand corner, and pulled up short during her sprint to cover the line when the ball appeared to be sailing wide or long or both.  'Lena signaled the chair to challenge the call before she even confirmed that the ball had been called in by the linesman. But Hawkeye showed the ball landing on the outside edge of the intersection of the baseline and sideline - the bulk of it touching the baseline in the doubles alley (which in singles is "out" territory) than the safe zone.

Once Hawkeye called Game on! to prevent Dementieva from serving for the match at 5-3, the intensity level rose even higher. Matches of this kind are difficult to describe, because an abundance of brilliant points and high-wire stunts make it impossible to do justice to any of them. Nor is it necessary, given the perils of trying to describe something as fluid and visual as a fantastic rally or a point filled with improbable turns. Let's just say the tennis was superb, unpredictable, and absorbing.

But one point demands mention - the match point 'Lena held with Serena serving at 4-5 in the third. Serena then chose to hit a second serve, which 'Lena put back into play, and the next thing you know, Serena was barreling to the net behind an approach shot to the backhand. Although she had to take the ball on the run, 'Lena had time to choose her shot: down-the-line, cross-court, or lob. She chose door no. 2, and Serena took the pass on the run. Her volley clipped the letcord (barely) and fell for a winner.

"You know, I'm disappointed with the shot," 'Lena would say, "Because I'm very surprised I didn't go down the line. Because, I mean, passing shot, this is my favorite shot to make. And, I mean, maybe it was too quick, so I didn't see she was moving to cover cross-court, you know. She was very close to the net. I mean, down the line or even lob (pained smile) would work. But, I mean, it's a game, you know. It was too quick."

Fair enough, but let's also remember that cross-court is always the safer shot, and you aren't going to do much damage to a Williams sister on grass by pulling your punches. Did truculent Serena instinctively know that in that desperate situation, 'Lena would eschew risk and play the safest ball? We'll never know, but the shot is likely to haunt 'Lena for a good long time.

So now we have a repeat of last year's Williams sisters final (won by Venus), and I'm not sufficiently cruel to go into the gory details the other semi, in which Venus ripped open Dinara Safina's chest, yanked out her heart, and woofed it down - still beating (oops). I felt for Safina, who won exactly one game in a semifinal that lasted under an hour, resurrecting the spirit of Steffi Graf.

Sadly, the entire Safina presser boiled down to a heartless interrogation, as she was pummeled with one question after another designed to make her recant her No. 1 ranking. It was a cruel thing to do, because it wasn't necessary; I just wish people would realize that a points-based ranking system is bound to reward consistency and, to a lesser degree, frequent play. It's a necessary evil, until someone comes up with a better idea. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and the Safina case proves it.

What will Serena have to do to avenge last year's loss to Venus?

"Well, uhm, just play my game," she said, in what is by now the familiar, opaque answer. "You know, don't play like I did today, get caught too much near the Royal Box or in the Royal Box, saying hi to the Duchess too much. Maybe that will help me out."

Someone asked when it starts to get "weird" between the sisters, and Serena promptly answered: "You know, it doesn't. The more we play, the better it gets."

But don't mistake the competitive undercurrents bubbling away this volcano of a woman. When she was asked if it would please her to see the sisterly rivalry end up a draw, she was quick to reply: "Of course not. Then I wouldn't win (laughs). I'm sure she feels the same."

Like Hawkeye said earlier, Game on.