Sometimes the finals is best looked through the lens of those who don’t make it.

On paper, Federer and Murray can commiserate together, though both in their own way.  On the one hand, Roger Federer has won 16 Slams and still feels he’s so close to getting back to where he’s used to being.  This match, almost a replay of last year’s semis, had to frustrate Federer to no end.

Federer started the match as well as he could.  Djokovic seemed out of sorts and was letting Federer dictate the points.  Federer and Djokovic played even until the tiebreak in the first set and won a long tiebreak.  In the second set, Federer was able to get a break on Djokovic and even had chance for a second break.

But Djokovic woke up and took sets 3 and 4 hardly dropping any points on serve.  In particular, in the fourth set, he didn’t drop a point on serve until late in the fourth off a double-fault and a game effort by Federer who nonetheless seemed content to tank the fourth set and, like last year, take a gamble on the fifth set.  Federer’s game had become unhinged in the third and fourth set.  Federer’s game requires precision and power.  Lapses are bad for his game, and this is why Federer lost sets 3 and 4.

The fifth set was played better with Federer hitting clean shots again.  Sharp backhand, inside out forehand winners.  Chances to break, then the break to lead 5-3.  With a 40-15 lead, Roger had to be thinking he had this in the bag.

Fed serves a wide serve which Djokovic clocked.  He would later claim that he hit it as hard as he could.  Federer would look back at this moment shaking his head, like a person who puts his whole savings into a lottery to save his family’s house and then wins the lottery.  It’s not supposed to happen like that Federer thought.  Djokovic has to care enough to play sane tennis, not take a gamble.

Perhaps this thought so affected Federer that he hit an inside out forehand that clipped the net and went out, and brought the score back to deuce.  So close, yet, so far.  That net clip might just drop over (although US Open nets are notoriously tight and tend to pop up balls, unlike the loose Wimbledon nets).  Then, the errors came.  Although Fed held off the inevitable with an ace for a moment, he dropped serve, and it was 5-4.  At this point, Djokovic was elated, happy to have a second chance.

Federer has learned to wipe emotions from his face, but once that break occurred, Fed seemed to drain all hope.  He couldn’t believe his chance had gone.  It was hard to keep shots in play.  Djokovic would hold serve at 5-all.  Federer then gets broken again, and is down 6-5.  He is unable to break Djokovic who comes back and wins the fifth set, 7-5.

The last few US Opens have been rough on Federer.  In 2009, Federer had been controlling the match against Juan Martin del Potro who seemed out of it after dropping the first set.  Federer was up 5-4, serving for the set, when he tried to approach the net twice on the vaunted del Potro forehand and was passed both times.  Why not hit to the weaker backhand?  Federer would lose the second set in a tiebreak, and although he won the third set, it was starting to be the beginning of the end as Federer lost the fourth set in a tiebreak then lost the fifth set tamely.

In 2010, Federer knew that Nadal had won an easy match over Youzhny.  He didn’t know how the weather would fare, whether both he would have to play Nadal the next day, if he won.  He admitted to not fighting hard in the sets that Djokovic won, and gambled on the fifth set.  And there, he had two match points, and Djokovic played boldly to save both, hitting one shot out of the air for a winner, and hitting the other to the forehand corner for a winner.

And this year, of course.  Three years and three years of what could have been.  How close it was.  Maybe Federer would be eight time US Open winner by now.  Well, maybe not.

And then there’s Andy Murray.  If Roger Federer is the jewel of Swiss tennis, at least he doesn’t have the burden of the Swiss media.  First of all, he’s won more Slams than anyone else.  Second, there isn’t exactly a tradition of great Swiss players.  Federer is it.  Federer could have won half the Slams and still be the darling of the neutral country nestled in the Alps.

The Brits haven’t had that much tennis success either, but they have a long memory, and they have Fred Perry.  Even if the British haven’t been outstanding at tennis in years, they still exert considerable pressure on any up-and-coming player for the win.

Tonight’s semifinals was a bit peculiar.  Murray started off hitting hard, but Nadal seemed content to keep the rallies going, chase after shots, and wait for the Murray miss.  Nadal realizes his game doesn’t require him to play offensive tennis even if that might preserve his knees.  His game is predicated on taking advantage of your mistakes.  Hit a ball too short, and he pounces on it, and doesn’t let go.  Murray was actually doing a pretty good job making Nadal run, but in he end, Murray has to go for big shots, and this is not the usual way Murray plays.

Murray isn’t Isner who plays big hitting tennis all the time because he needs to.  If Isner were to play softball tennis, players would attack him and take advantage of his slow foot speed.  Murray is one of the quickest players in the world, so he doesn’t need to play big.  The problem is, he needs to do it to play Nadal, and invariably, it leads to errors.  In nearly every match of importance that Murray has, there is a point where Murray needs to win, has it on his racquet, and misses, either volleying too much, slapping the ball.

It is telling that Murray’s first two games, he fell behind 0-30 and dug himself out of a hole.  This makes Murray’s game infuriating.  There’s generally some point where he gets himself into a hole and has to dig himself out of it.  It’s almost as if he can’t stand too much prosperity.  In the second round against Robin Haase, Murray had  4-0 lead.  At the worst, it should have been 6-2, but Haase tied it up at 4-all only to lose his serve and have Murray win the match 6-4.

Murray would lose his serve and despite having chances to break Nadal, be unable to do so.  It’s not that Murray can’t hit big shots.  He can.  Andy Roddick would love the kind of power that leaves Nadal scrambling to get shots.  Murray can hit winners.  Roddick, as many noted in the quarterfinals, hit no groundstroke winners.  To be fair, Roddick felt his win of importance was defeating the tenacious David Ferrer.

The second set went 6-2 to Nadal without Nadal looking like his imposing self.  Murray was just making too many errors and unable to take advantage of points when he set himself up.  Sure, Nadal won a few points on hard shots or sneaks to the net, but he was more or less content watching Nadal make the error.

The third set saw Murray break early on playing long clay-court like points.  Nadal would earn the break back again, but Murray would eventually break a second time and hold to win the third set, which was the first set Nadal had dropped the entire tournament.

However, in the fourth set, the errors began creeping back into Murray’s game as Nadal decided to up the aggression level in his game.  He would get one break, then have Murray down 0-40 with three chances to get a second break.  Murray would claw his way back in this game playing aggressive ball and eventually hold.  However, he wouldn’t be able to break Nadal, and then he found himself in another 0-40 hole.  This time, he didn’t get out.  Nadal took the fourth set 6-2.

For Murray to beat Nadal, he has to channel Federer.  That is, make aggressive shots, with minimum errors.  The reason Djokovic beats Nadal is that he’s able to play the kind of counterpunching that Nadal does, but play aggressive but reasonable shots for winners.  Whenever Djokovic goes for a winner, you feel it’s controlled.  He hits it hard, but not big, like Federer or Murray.

Neither Nadal nor Djokovic have looked spectacular, but their ordinary is extraordinary for others.  This likely means that the two will have an interesting struggle.  Djokovic will, as he’s done so far, rely on his confidence beating Nadal five times in a row to try to beat him again.  This confidence was what allowed Nadal to beat Murray and Djokovic to beat Federer.

So this will not only be the second consecutive Slam that Djokovic has met Nadal (they played in the Wimbledon finals), but also the second consecutive US Open they’ve met in the finals.  Meanwhile, Federer and Murray have more thinking to do.