Jonathon Braden – Journalist and Tennis Aficionado

Andy Murray, a point away from losing momentum in the Rogers Cup championship and losing his serve against the greatest player of all-time, cocked back his arm and whipped an ace out wide against Roger Federer on the quick, blue hard court in Toronto.

The next point, different spot – down the T on the deuce court – same result.

Three points later, Murray had beaten Federer in the final for the first time and in straight sets, 7-5, 7-5. It was the first time Murray had beaten Rafael Nadal and Federer in the same week, and Murray became the first man to defend his Rogers Cup title since Andre Agassi did it 15 years ago.

Maybe we all should go without formal coaches.

But as impressive as this week was for Murray, who played his best tennis of the year, what’s more astounding is how he dominated this week, how Murray pounced on the court, darting after balls and aggressively attacking instead of shrinking against the best in tennis.

Aggressive. The “a” word that always lingers by Murray. When he plays tentative, gets the ball in play and waits for his opponents to flop, they say, he should have tried more backhands down the line, been more aggressive. When he slaps approach shots deep into the corners, creates more angles and sneaks in more often, they say, maybe he should let his opponent hit a few more balls.

But with this week’s showing, has there ever been more reason to wonder why Murray doesn’t always take the swinging volley or why he doesn’t always string his opponent from side to side instead of waiting for his opponent to do the same to him?

Sure, Murray had fresher legs as Federer showed the effects of back-to-back three-set matches the last two nights. But these weren’t five-set marathons that took everything out of Federer, this wasn’t the U.S Open, where this summer will end.

Murray, 23, is still without a major championship. But, you wonder, after seeing what he did this week on the fast hard courts in Toronto, just two weeks before the lights shine on those quick, hard courts in New York, how long we’ll be able to introduce him as the best in the men’s game without a Grand Slam title.

Andy Roddick's right shoulder injury was one of two surprise injuries at the Australian Open.

Roger Federer gliding his hands through his long, black hair, with sweat dripping off of every lock. Camera shots of his wife with her arms outstretched, celebrating another Grand Slam victory for her man. And the Melbourne crowd screaming, thankful as ever for another opportunity to watch the greatest win again, this, No. 16.

The ending to the Australian Open – Federer capturing another major in straight sets – we had seen before. We have watched the much-hyped last match end with a final set of drama even though everyone had memorized the last words of the chapter.

That doesn’t mean, however, that this year’s first major didn’t live up to its reputation of surprising us. It’s just that this year’s surprises weren’t the ones we want to see again.

The first revelation arrived with more confusion than the second. Here was Andy Roddick, a player known for his work ethic and great fitness, reaching for his right shoulder. After losing a set, he even called out the trainer.

We knew of Roddick’s bothersome knees, the injury led him to skip Davis Cup this year, but his right shoulder causing aches, the one in which his livelihood depends upon?

This was not a pestering injury that chose an awful time to reappear. This was a new pain that surfaces when you play tennis year-round with hardly any breaks.

But, to his credit, Roddick stayed in his quarterfinal contest against Marin Cilic, and even turned it into a match, winning the third and fourth set before falling in the fifth.

The second shocker was more of an eyebrow-raiser than an outright surprise. People probably expected Rafael Nadal to retire sometime during the tournament because of his nagging knees. But the knee injury that made him quit against Andy Murray in their quarterfinal was a new discomfort for Rafa, different from the tendonitis that has threatened his career.

Two top 10 tennis players, in skill and in popularity, reduced to mere editions of themselves, far from their best because of injuries. Both Roddick and Nadal might have lost even if they were healthy, but we’ll never know and that’s the shame of tennis’ offseason, or the maybe two months players don’t have tournaments to enter.

In few major events have we seen such glaring reminders of why tennis needs a longer break. Players have publicly complained about it for years, most recently, Roddick, coincidentally.

But how many more top 10 players need to bow out before tour officials to take them seriously? How many more matches will players need to tank at smaller tournaments to conserve their bodies for the Grand Slams before the rules are changed? And how many more careers will be threatened with injuries before the age of 30?

Tennis, like golf, as a sport, is especially afflicted when it loses its stars. The sport aches without its greatest stories, such as Rodick and Rafa. Some of the luster disappears, and tennis becomes even more of a niche activity to the non-participants.

But let’s not let it digress. Let’s fix the problem before it worsens and actually listen to the professionals: create a legitimate offseason.

We could see more of Nadal hoisting trophies or more calls for the trainer in 2010.

The last time we saw Rafael Nadal in a Grand Slam, he was being replaced by the man he was supposed to be: a young, aggressive player with a volatile go-to shot that made everyone in the game awe at his skills.

But instead of Nadal ending Roger Federer’s five-year U.S. Open run and adding to his dominance over the greatest player ever, we welcomed Juan Martin del Potro to the New York winner’s circle and crowned him the best contender against Federer.

For del Potro, the 21-year-old Argentine, it was an earlier start to his Grand Slam collection than most had predicted. But, for Federer, it marked a time when someone not named Rafa maneuvered inside his head, disrupting the mental game of the best ever.

This season, no player’s 2010 trajectory could impact the men’s game more so than Rafa – the ripped, 23-year-old Spaniard who owns a 13-7 record against Federer.

If Rafa recovers from the second half of 2009 and intensely competes even with patellar tendinitis hampering him – although he says he’s healthy – he could battle or overtake Federer and Co. for almost every Grand Slam.

We could be spoiled with more classic Federer v. Nadal matches, with greatness trickling out of every shot and every point.

Tennis’s boxer would be back.

But if his knees pester him, if the bandages multiply and the pain increases, the lack of Rafa creates an open race for the titles, or as much of an open race as you can have with Federer still No. 1. Not to say that continued parody would be a bad thing, either, but an injuried Rafa only enhances Federer’s advantage, as we’ve seen.

With almost every other contender to Federer, we can at least pretend to think we know what we’ll be getting this year at the Grand Slams.

Novak Djokovic: a finals appearance, maybe even a title, but no dominating like a healthy Nadal could.

Andy Murray: an early exit, a couple of semifinal appearances and maybe even a final, but probably no championship.

Nikolay Davydenko: a solid three sets. For now, that’s about it.

Andy Roddick: see Murray.

It is del Potro who offers the best chance to replicate what Nadal has done. But to expect del Potro, after one Grand Slam triumph, to ease through the competition as only Nadal and Federer have done of late might be asking too much, too soon.

What Nadal will attempt this year will be something we have seen few times in this sport: a champion trying to rehabilitate his body while playing, and along the way, attempting to reclaim his dominance.

That is fitting, though, because much of what Nadal has achieved on the tennis court we had never seen before him.

With most everyone else this year, we at least have history to help us predict.

But with Nadal, we just don’t know.

Serena Williams recently lost it during her semifinal match at the U.S. Open. It wasn’t quite the shout heard ’round the world, but days after her “conversation” with a lines woman, what Serena said to the judge was about as common for conversation as what President Obama called Kanye West.

For those who still haven’t heard, here’s what happened with Serena: After a lines judge called a foot fault on her, the U.S. Open defending champion dropped a few f-bombs at the judge, said she would shove the ball down the woman’s throat and said a few more unkind words.

The outburst ended up costing her the match because it cost her a point and it was match point. Smooth criminal.

What’s been most interesting, however, is not what Serena shouted at this poor woman or how many f-bombs she spewed. I’ve enjoyed people’s reactions to Serena.

Writers questioned whether this would taint Serena’s legacy forever. Others said Serena would never be looked at the same despite her 23 Grand Slam titles, including 11 by herself. Excuse me for not hopping on the hate bandwagon, but I find these reactions interesting.

Let’s analyze what happened: a tennis player, two points away from losing the match at one of four grand slams in front of thousands of people, cussed out a judge because she did not like the call the judge made. The call was very unusual and is almost never said during tennis matches, especially during such crucial points. But that’s not the point. In an emotionally-filled match and point, an intense tennis player let her emotions slide in front of her reasoning.

It’s happened to me many of times while playing tennis and competing in sports. I’m sure it’s happened to you as well. In fact, if you just said no, I’d probably call you a liar if I was sitting next to you.

In competition, emotions often blind or obstruct our rational thoughts. It doesn’t matter if its a geography contest or a tennis match or the Super Bowl, it happens. It’s why fans yell obscene words at opposing fans and teams. That and Mad Dog 20/20.

I’m sorry, but what Serena did was little different than what we’ve all done during emotional moments of our lives.

Yes, I know, Serena did say she would take the ball and shove it down the woman’s throat. That’s a little far, I agree. But think about it: she’s two points from losing the match, has all kinds of anger inside of her for already falling back a set, Serena basically was searching for someone in which to shout!

But, I suppose I agree with some of the columnists and fans who say they’ll never look at Serena the same again. I won’t, either, because after seeing her hit shots I didn’t think mortals could hit, now I know she’s human after all.

I think Roger Federer is amazing. The way he always, always rips a sweet, one-handed backhand winner down the line when his opponent is at the net during the biggest point of the match. Or the way you always have a feeling he’s going to win a match – the same feeling you have when you play tennis – but Federer actually cashes in on the good vibes. Federer is one of the greatest players ever to play tennis.

But excuse me if I’m not quite ready to crown him the king of racquets and fuzzy balls just yet. Yes, he’s won 15 majors. That’s a lot, one more than my boyhood tennis hero, Pete Sampras. Yes, Federer recently completed the career Grand Slam. Well done. And yes, he’s dominated this era like no one has done in any previous era of tennis. Bravo.

For some reason, though, when Federer captured major No. 15 against Andy Roddick at Wimbledon, we all seemed to forget about that one Spaniard who was injured. Yeah, Rafael Nadal, you remember him. The guy who owns Federer. The guy who is 5-2 against Roger in Grand Slam finals. The freak of an athlete who kept Federer from winning the French Open three straight times.

With Nadal out of the fold, Federer won the French, the grand slam after the Australian Open, where Nadal again beat Federer. The Spaniard is 5-2 against Federer in Grand Slam finals.

While Nadal watched Wimbledon, Federer won another Grand Slam, beating Roddick in the legendary final. Federer has had similar success this summer, with Nadal coming back from his injury. Federer recently won the Western & Southern Financial Group Masters in Cincinnati for the third time.

We somehow couldn’t remember or didn’t want to mention why Federer hadn’t been sweeping titles like this in previous years. For example, before Nadal, if Federer would have been out for half a year and Roddick somehow would have won two more majors and a few tournaments, everyone would have said, well, wait a minute, Federer is out. It’s not like Roddick is playing that much better, let’s see how he does once Roger returns.

The disclaimer hasn’t existed with Nadal, however, and I’m not sure why.

Federer has stepped up well in Nadal’s absence, reclaiming his No. 1 ranking and dominating the tour like he did before the long-haired, capri-wearing soccer player who looks like a boxer pounced on the court. But until Federer shows he consistently wins at this level with a healthy Nadal, I’m reserving judgment on the media-sponsored “best ever” discussion.

I’m not saying Federer isn’t one of the best ever, if not the best. Let’s just wait for a healthy Nadal to decide the argument.