Federer-Nadal a friendly rivalry that keeps on giving

With still a week to go, the U.S. Open narrative remains essentially the same. Top seed Rafael Nadal never has won the Open and five-time champ Roger Federer was dethroned by Juan Martin del Potro in last year's final, but the anticipation builds toward the first-ever Nadal-Federer showdown for the Flushing Meadows title.

This is not because a couple of other players are incapable of blowing up the plot. There is widespread agreement in the tennis world that Andy Murray could win his first Grand Slam event here. Maybe Novak Djokovic, the 2008 Australian champ, could pull off his biggest major tournament victory. Or Robin Soderling, who has beaten both Nadal and Federer on his way to consecutive French Open finals, could produce a shocker.

But Federer's 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 third-round victory Saturday over France's Paul-Henri Mathieu, who is ranked 109th, moved along the conversation on how he and Nadal have been the sport's top two players for six years now, surely destined for another major championship shootout.

And it is a foregone conclusion, as Soderling put it, that "in any tournament, when Roger and Rafa are playing, they will be the favorites." Furthermore, there is the familiar homage to their rivalry as a tennis bonanza, a gift of mutual regard and contrasting styles that keeps on giving.

Italy's Francesca Schiavone, the reigning women's French Open champion, was asked what it is about her sport that captivates fans and said, "I can give you an example: If you watch Rafa, 'Oh, I'm here; I'm going to scream like this.' If you see Roger, you can feel a different style.''

One is grit, the other grace. "I think Roger and Rafa are example for everybody," Schiavone said. "Example because they respect each other, they respect the opponent, they fight every point, they win big matches, and they can show you who they are."

The topic of keen rivalries in men's tennis often prompts tennis aficionados to recall the figurative street fights between John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, a sporting equivalent to leaving lots of blood and teeth on the floor. With Nadal and Federer, their duels are closer to the Socratic method, athletic debates between individuals with opposing viewpoints, stimulating and illuminating new ideas about their craft.

"When I meet people," said Andy Roddick, already dismissed from Open contention in the second round, "they always ask - one of the first questions - 'What are Roger and Rafa like?'

"I say, 'They go about their business the right way. They're respectful. They take care of their responsibilities with the media. They're very involved in everyday kinds of things with the [players] council. They're been very, very good leaders for our sport. But, first and foremost, you have to get to a certain level in the game before people really care about your characters."

To describe that high-level Nadal-Federer head-to-head series as a "friendly rivalry" - Nadal leads, 14-7 and 6-2 in Grand Slam events - is somewhat mystifying to Connors, who admitted he "wasn't good at that" and "had to go out there with a killer instinct."

But Nadal and Federer, he noted, "certainly bring the intensity to it when they play. It's just their attitude. You can't inject my attitude or McEnroe's attitude into Roger and Rafa. The fans see that that would be a bluff and that's not who they really are. But, certainly, a rivalry is a rivalry, as long as it's good tennis."

Still a week to go. But the primary protagonists are on serve.