If this had been a rather lackluster U.S. Open marked primarily by the absence of marquee value through the late rounds𒁃 of the tournament, Sunday’s men’s final produced 3 h🅘ours, 55 minutes of glittering tennis.
And it was Stan Wawrinka, who do꧅es not possess ei♈ther the name recognition or cachet of Big Four charter members Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray among the general U.S. sporting populace, who stole the show.
It was Wawrinka, who has won three majors over the last three years, who ultimately battered Djokovic, the world’s No. 1, into submission with a memorable display of perseverance and power in this 6-7 (1-7), 6-4, 7-5, 6-3 victory.
And it is Wawrinka who is now firmly ensconced in the upper echelon of the men’s game, his three Slam championships that include the 2014 French and the 2015 Aust꧑ralian, trailing only Djokovic’s five in that time frame, with Nadal, Murray and Marin Cilic each with one apiece.
Ensconced among the elite, even if he refuses to admit⛦ it.
“But I’🌠m not,” he said after the slugfest that he dominated over the final three sets with a relentless display of bash-and-smash tennis. “The🐬 Big Four, I’m really far from there.
“The tournaments that they’ve won, how many years they’ve been there. They’re not only winning, but going to the semifinals or final every ti💙me. I’m not there.”
Could have fooled us. Could have fooled everyone in the house that was in full throat throughout, most often exhorting Djokovic with chants of “Novak … Novak” but also demonstrably appreciative of Wawrinka, the Everyman who was steadfast in saving 14 of 17 break points and notably superior in essentially all of the decisive moments over the final three sets.
Everyman; right. As if every man could pound the ball and play the kind of tennis displayed by Wawrinka, who previously had surviveꦺd a third-round match point against Daniel Evans and physically dominated this one to, age at 31-plus, become the oldest Open champion sinc𒉰e Ken Rosewall won it age 35 in 1970.
And the second Swiss to win it.
Speaking of whom. Federer, the de facto home team in Queens in the absence of any serious American challenger over the last decade, was absent himself from this one, rehabbing a knee that gave way at Wimbledon. It barely matters to the folks here that this Swiss has one only won major sinc꧃e the 2010 French Open.
For he remains tennis’ answer — at least in New York — to Arnold Palmer of the mid-60s when it had become obvious that the King had been surpass♛ed by Jack Nicklaus. He remains the People’s Choice and his absence was notable.
The tournament’s memorable matches leading up to this one were Nadal’s fourth round, five-set tiebreak defeat to up💟start Frenchm𒁃an Lucas Pouille; Andy Murray’s quarterfinal five-set loss to Kei Nishikori in which the Scot su💟ffered a temperamental m🐓eltdown following an early fourth-set speaker malfunction that prompted a replay of what could have been a decisive point; and the semifinal in which Gael Monfils adopted an unconventional and ultimately un𝔍successful strategy in an attempt to deal with Djokovic.
The draw and the twin early departures of Nadal and Murray conspired against the more famous late-round matchups. And on the women’s sideꦰ, for the second consecutive year, the presumed manifest destiny of Serena Williams was derailed again in a semifinal upset defeat. Angelique Kerber took the title and ascended to the No. 1 ranking. That may play well everywhere else in the world, but here, not so much.
The Open always represents a magnificent New York experience t♕hat is larger than the play on the court itself. For 13 days, the play did༺n’t quite measure up. But it sure did in this men’s final.
And it was Wawrinka, the reluctant newest member of tennis’ upper class, who saved — and served up🌌 — the best for last.