Chokovic Overwhelmed by Moment, Federer

Novak Chokovic. Novak Chokamatch. Novictory Choke.
Up five set points on his serve in the first set, up two set points in the second set, on serve in the third and then double-faulting on the second to the last point of the match, Novak Djokovic was not looking very much like the future of men's tennis today, despite the outsized talent that presented him with these tremendous opportunities in his first Grand Slam. The future of men's tennis instead was looking very much like its past: Roger Federer.
Likable, witty and nice, even kissing the runner up trophy during the awards presentation and certainly grateful for all he was able to accomplish this fortnight, Djokovic is not likely to be looking back at this match with many warm and fuzzy feelings. Given Federer's incredible talents, there is, of course, no guarantee that Djokovic would have won even had he prevailed in the first and second sets, as he came so close to doing.
But he needs to get out of his own way if he's to take it to the next level and become the dominant player of men's tennis, as the closeness of this match suggests he still might, despite some understandable nerves in his first Grand Slam final.
Djokovic shouldn't just double-fault away golden opportunities. Or hit ball after ball long and stay back at the baseline to try and outhit Roger from there, even though he'd been winning when he was moving forward and into the net.
Did Roger play some phenomenal tennis when he needed to? Did he rise to the occasion and seize his opportunities as soon as they came into view? Did he actually hit that cross-court backhand at such an unbelievable angle toward the end of the match? Yes, yes and yes.
By the third set though, the only suspense left for me was whether Roger would break down and sob when he won, as victory seemed inevitable by that point. Unless there were a few tears of joy when Rog stuck his head in his fluorescent white towel briefly, he did not sob. Alas.
Maybe they should just give Roger a bye into the finals at Grand Slams from this point on. And prohibit him from practicing between events. Then, the rest of the competitors might hone their talents and present the absolute best contendor in the entire field. Who probably then would still lose.
We need new phrases to praise Federer, who now has won a dozen Grand Slams. Four U.S. Opens in a row should have some name for it, shouldn't it? It is in some ways even more impressive than four Grand Slams in one year. What would you call that though, a Grand U.S. Open?
Oh and, by the way, he again won three out of four of the Grand Slams this year, a feat he has achieved for the third time. Here are some of the laggards in men's tennis who have not ever won three of the four Grand Slams in one year: Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras. Other than Mats Wilander in 1988 the last professional men's player to win three out of four Grand Slams in one year was Rod Laver in 1969--12 years before Federer was born and one year before his mother Lynette turned 18 and met his father, Robert.
What impressed me most about Federer throughout was his incredible calm. The composure was evident in his rock-solid footwork--no excessive scampering about it. On some points, I just watched him and he looked unbelievably at ease, like he was out hitting somewhere just working on his strokes, not actually getting pushed to the limit. Other than Nadal on clay and that one Wimbledon this past year against Nadal, I don't get the feeling that anyone is pushing Federer to the limit.
Just how much better might he be if he had a true competitor?