It all changed three weeks ago at the championship match of the Masters Series Hamburg tournament.
After one set, it looked like the same old story in the Rafael Nadal/Roger Federer rivalry would unfold. Nadal was six games away from his 82nd straight win on clay, his seventh victory in eight tries over Federer, and most notably his sixth triumph over Federer on the red stuff without a loss.
Would all of that have sent people diving for their snooze buttons in the early hours of Championship Sunday 2007 at Roland Garros? Well, not exactly, but plenty of flavor would have been sucked out of the Nadal/Federer final. Let's be honest, Federer would have close to zero chance in this match if he was coming into it having never conquered Nadal on clay. If his confidence against less-imposing foes was already wavering (from a loss to Fillipo Volandri in Rome and several shouldn't-have-been-that-close encounters with guys like Carlos Moya and David Ferrer), his confidence with Nadal on the other side of the net was nonexistent. Another loss to the Spaniard would have devastated and destroyed any hope of a Federer breakthrough at the French.
As good as Federer is, he would be going into this match convinced of yet another unfortunate outcome. If you've never gotten the best of Nadal on this surface, Roland Garros is not the place to start. He has never lost a match at the French Open. That's right, not one. As the two-time defending champion, Nadal will be taking a perfect 20-0 record into Sunday's final match.
It looked like Nadal would also be taking a perfect 2007 clay-court record into the French Open after the first set of the Nadal/Federer showdown in Hamburg. It looked like on clay, there was still Nadal, and then there was everyone else. It looked like same ol' Nadal domination.
It looked a lot different than it does now. The stakes will be the same, but the hype will different.
Federer stormed from one set down to end Nadal's 82-match winning streak on clay with an emphatic yet dramatic win. The Swiss rolled to 6-2 win in the second set to set up what viewers surely thought would be an epic third and final frame. Instead, what we got was a bagel: 6-0, Federer.
Just like that, a potential Federer/Nadal French rematch went from something that would have registered, say, a 5.0 on the Richter Scale to an event that would read nothing short of a 10.0.
(In case you're wondering, 5.0 is defined as "moderate," while 10.0 is "meteoric; never recorded." Yep, that sounds just about right.)
This one is going to be huge, for so many reasons. First, the stakes are remarkably high. For mere mortals, simply winning the French Open itself is a prize that makes knees buckle at the baseline. For Federer and Nadal, the stakes are so much more, to the extent that it's almost impossible to remember that the sole thing they are really playing for is the 2007 French Open title.
The focus will not be on the capturing of that single entity, but on what the triumph will mean in historical context. For Federer, it would finalize the career Grand Slam (winning all four Grand Slam tournament at least once at any point in time), a feat that has not been accomplished since Andre Agassi completed his at Roland Garros in 1999. Federer would also hold all four Grand Slam trophies at the same time. It would no doubt be hailed as the "Federer Slam," but much more importantly, it would put him in prime position to capture the true Grand Slam — winning all four majors in a calendar year.
If Federer wins the French, nobody can bet against him not winning the Grand Slam. I really don’t see anyone right now who can challenge him on grass, and the second best player on hard courts right now is arguably Novak Djokovic. Djokovic is clearly on fire at the moment, but would he be ready to deny Roger Federer of the Grand Slam at the U.S. Open? I think not. And Guillermo Canas can’t beat Federer three straight times in 2007, can he? Nadal can never be discounted anywhere he plays, but if Federer has already evened things on the clay, it’s hard to imagine Nadal getting the best of him on any other surface right now.
Federer would become the third player to win the Grand Slam and first since Rod Laver did it in 1969. If Federer triumphs on Sunday, that’s all tennis aficionados will be talking about until September.
Nadal will not be playing for that kind of history, but at 21-years-old, he's already making his own history. With two French Opens already secured, Nadal is bidding to become the fifth man since the Open Era began in 1968 to win at least three French Open titles. Bjorn Borg has a record six, and a trio of players has three: Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, and Gustavo Kuerten. Nadal would also be the second man to win three in-a-row, the first since Bjorg won four between 1978 and 1981.
What does each man need to do to cement his place in history even more? Federer, of course, must do exactly what he did in the last two sets of his victory in Hamburg. After letting Nadal dictate play in the first set, Federer was the clear aggressor in sets two and three. Instead of allowing Nadal's heavy groundstrokes to overcome him, he started taking balls early and taking control of points right from the start.
Just as he did in Hamburg, Federer needs to make Nadal play from both well behind the baseline and all the way up at net. When Federer is serving, Nadal routinely stands ridiculously far back. That means any decent serve will give Federer immediate control of the point. He can pin Nadal in that same spot behind the baseline and then use his backhand slice or drop shot to either win points, or at the very least, bring Nadal to the net, where the Spaniard is much less comfortable.
When Federer is dictating play, he can work Nadal's forehand all day long. While that side is not exactly a weakness of the Spaniard, it should certainly be targeted more than his backhand. Nadal's two-hander from the right side is a polished force that has only gotten better throughout the French Open. Federer especially needs to avoid Nadal's backhand when he's hitting approach shots, because Nadal's backhand pass is second to none.
Nadal, meanwhile, wants to get into grinding backhand-to-backhand rallies. The key for Nadal will be to open up the court, at which point he can go down the line and force Federer to hit an on-the-run forehand. When Federer is off, his running forehand is the first to go.
Nadal is content to play all day long and will attempt to wear Federer down until he can deliver a knockout blow in the late stages of the match. Federer, on the other hand, wants to play shorter points; another reason why he needs to be the one dictating play and gaining the upper hand early on in rallies.
All in all, I think the match is in Federer's hands. That does not necessarily mean I think that he will win, and not even that I think he should win. The bottom line is Federer is the best and most talented player in the world, and on any day on any surface, his best will beat anyone else's best.
Federer played his best in two of three sets in Hamburg, and we all saw what happened. The question is can Federer reproduce that kind of play for no less than three sets on Sunday? He certainly can, but I just don't see it happening. Nadal will be too physically imposing and I anticipate Federer wearing down as his opponent's grueling play takes its toll.
I'm taking Nadal in five, but it is anyone's match. I really have no idea.
All I know if that the only way Federer/Nadal can live up to the hype is if it turns out to be a four-hour, five-set, one-for-the-ages classic.
June 7, 2007
Brenda:
I am cheering for Federer. I would love to see him conquer all the records!!! He is so polite and such a deserving person. He works hard; he’s a good role model; and he’s generous. My bets are on him.
June 8, 2007
Lucy:
Can I say that the semi-finals are still being played? While I am rooting for Roger, and have been since FO 06, there is the chance of an upset. At the time of writing Roger is one set up against Davydenko but Djokovic is not an easy task for Nadal. Please don’t count your chickens before they hatch - you may be severely disappointed. (Federer in four)
June 8, 2007
Ricky:
definitely good points by Lisa - just had to write the article and get it posted in time for it to be relevant. Djokovic I never thought had any chance against Nadal (turned out he didn’t). The one i thought would be the problem was Federer-Davydenko (it was). Davydenko could have easily won all three of those sets.
Fortunately for tennis fans, he didn’t. Game on.
June 9, 2007
moppy:
haven’t watched a single point of the French yet, but having read Rick’s comments, I’m psyched and can’t wait for THAT match!
June 10, 2007
Mert Ertunga:
Great article Ricky. Nadal won in 4 sets, for me it was not a surprise. I disagree that any match played on clay against Nadal is in the hands of the other player (including Federer). Nadal would have to play far below his potential to be beaten.
Federer will be criticized for making all the unforced errors etc. but on clay when someone gets every ball back and forces you to go for outrageous spots, unforced errors will creep in. Personally, I consider half of the unforced errors made by Federer “forced” in that sense. He would have to hit 2 or 3 laser shots to the corners in each rally and do that for three sets at least to win. Even a paragon of the game like Federer can’t achieve that kind of consistency.
There were many points where Federer would have won the point after the first or second shot to the corner if the match was on grass. In turn, Nadal would have felt the pressure and gone for more not to allow that, and as a result, made more errors himself. It’s all relative. The bottom line is Nadal is better than Federer on clay, and far far better than anyone else.
Mert
June 10, 2007
Ricky:
good points Mert, although i still think Federer’s best beats anyone else’s best on any day anywhere. Although perhaps the “match is in federers hands” statement was incorrect.
What i should have emphasized and clarified is that it’s pretty much impossible to play your best against Nadal on clay. but if Federer was somehow able to, it would be enough to win.
Nadal’s victory was certainly emphatic, but Federer had so many chances to take the first set - which is a set he HAD to win. And i don’t know why Federer didn’t stick with what he was doing in the 2nd set - more aggressive, taking balls early, getting in to net. Perhaps Nadal just wore him down, but it looked like Fed inexplicably got away from his game plan.