The champion is back to his best

Yes, those were all the reasons behind his success. But the biggest one of them all was confidence. The confidence gained after he saved two match points against Roger Federer at U.S. Open last year. And the confidence gained by leading a small nation to it’s maiden Davis Cup victory. And it was the same confidence that let him down today against Roger Federer.

The first set began in the same fashion, as it did in Melbourne. A few tight nerves by both players, who finally settled down and produced some riveting stuff, arguably producing the best set of tennis we have had all year. But once Federer won the all-important first set in the tie-breaker—the reverse of what happened in Melbourne—Djokovic’s confidence took a hit.

Suddenly, the clay court became slippery, the conditions did not suit him, and the air became thin—he started breathing heavily. The mindset of the invincible was lost. The man was coming down to earth again. He cursed himself in Serbian, gave frustrated look towards his camp, threw the racket in the air.   It is such a fine line, that between confidence and losing it. It took him five months to get a feel of invincibility, and yet all it took was one hour and ten minutes of tennis from Federer to disturb it.

Of course, it was one hour and ten minutes of  “special” tennis from Federer that did it. As much as Federer had underplayed his “role” in this historic event, he wanted this more than anybody. His body language never looked passive, as it has looked in many of his recent matches, there were roars of “kha-mons” after virtually every big point he won, and after victory, he pointed his index finger towards the camp the same way as he had done after winning Madrid in ’09. That time he went on to win two of his most important majors of his career. Not sure if he will go on to win this one or not, but he definitely reminded all of us of the statement he made after Melbourne, when he was asked him his era was over, “Let’s talk again in six months.”

It took only five months. It was probably not what everybody predicted at the start of the tournament, probably not even a day before. And now it is hard to believe that we have not had a Federer-Nadal match up in a major for more than two years. In a way, it is a fitting finale between two players who are both looking for answers. Federer trying to find how much fight has been left within him—and based on today, it seems a lot. Nadal, trying to fix the huge dents formed in his impenetrable clay fortress. Nadal has usually held a huge upper hand in their matchups on clay, and we know what strategy he will employ on Sunday. It will be interesting to see what Federer tries to do. From today’s evidence, his backhand looked extremely solid against Novak’s two-hander, but Novak offered him pace, whereas Nadal will offer him spin. It will be fascinating.

In the modern era, especially in the last two decades, with the advent of graphite rackets, better strings and lighter weight rackets, the art and elegance of the one-hander has given way to the brute force and power of the two-handed backhand. So what if you can’t achieve the same level of finesse and precision with the two hander when you can use it much more efficiently to hit winners off this wing?

Andre Agassi famously says about his backhand down-the-line, “This shot has helped me pay a lot of my bills!”

Contenders: Rafael Nadal, David Nalbandian, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Stanislas Wawrinka (one-handed backhand)

Novak Djokovic is one whose backhand can be termed as a weapon.

Pete Sampras and Roger Federer may have won a combined 30 Slams with only their one-handed stroke (Pete, in fact, struggled throughout his junior years after he converted his two-hander into a one-handed backhand), but they will be the first to admit that there were subtle weaknesses that were easily capitalized by their opponents. Sampras never won a Major on clay precisely due to this reason, while the dominance of Rafael Nadal over Federer is well documented.

And hence the biggest backhands in the modern game are those with the two-fister. Nadal has flattened his stroke immensely in the last two years, and hits possibly the best backhand passing shots ever witnessed in history, especially when off balance, but he routinely faces difficulty on this shot when short on form or confidence. The single-fisted players with a more western grip like Stan Wawrinka and Tommy Haas may not have glaring weaknesses like Federer, but they lose a lot of variety that Federer has, and the lack of consistency hurts them immensely.

Which leaves us with two players who have been perennially at No. 3 and 4. Andy Murray possesses almost as much variety with his double hander as a player with a single handed backhand, and this stroke is the primary reason why he has been at the top even with a forehand that can at best be considered a liability. Even though he may not generate as much power as Nadal or Novak Djokovic, he craftily utilizes the pace of his opponent to direct the ball at will on either side of the court.

Despite all this, when it comes to the backhand, only Nole comes to mind. Watching him hit his backhand so confidently reminds you of none other than Andre Agassi and he is  probably the only player who has no glaring weakness on his backhand, be it cross court, down the line or slice. Using an extremely western grip on this side, Nole firmly grips his racket and uses his strong upper body to generate extreme pace on the backhand, and one can see the ball flying off the court (especially on the fast Deco Turf) as Nole hits the ball for a winner from even behind the baseline. He may be out of form or confidence, but his signature stroke, the backhand down the line, is always to be watched out for.

With such variety and strength on the less important wing, Djokovic can confidently use his backhand as a “weapon” to end points, rather than as a means to set up a forehand.

Winner: Novak Djokovic

Special Mention: Marat Safin’s jumping backhand is one of the favorite delights of the author.

Women’s Contenders: Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Maria Sharapova, Caroline Wozniacki

Winner: Kim Clijsters

Read about the best shots in tennis:

1. The Serve

2. The Forehand

3. The Return of Serve

4. The Volley

5. The Dropshot

6. Movement

8. The Head

Roger Federer Forehand

What do you do? You hit a massive inside-out forehand wide from the ad court, which barely catches the line on the opposite side of the court for a scorching winner. You save the break point, save your serve, save the match, and go on to win the only Major that had eluded you so far. Greatness. Rather, GOATness.

In the 90s, the dynamics of the faster courts, inferior string technologies, and relatively poor levels of returns made the big serve-first volley crucial to a Major success (think Pete Sampras, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg). The dynamics have now changed to the big-serve, big-forehand combination. In fact, forehand has become the single most important stroke in tennis (even more than the serve—think Rafael Nadal) given the way the game has advanced.

Players can virtually control the game only using their forehand, be it with a cross court punch for a winner, a down the line forehand following it up to the net, or pushing the opponent out of the court with a massive inside out heave. And in the worst case, they can hit a running forehand cross-court to leave their opponent at the net staring in disbelief. Winners out of the forehand wing far outweigh the winners from any other stroke in tennis, be it serve, backhand, or volleys (duh!). In fact, the biggest reason why Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic have not won more Majors despite great all round games is because of the lack of a big forehand.

And the size and build of modern players has given the game some of the biggest forehands we have ever seen in Tennis. Be it the ugliness in the massive, huge heave of Robin Soderling, the effectiveness of Tomas Berdych, or the explosiveness of Andy Roddick (that is, before he converted into a grinder) or Jo Wilfried Tsonga, big forehands have become a norm. However, the massiveness of the forehands also come with their weakness. Soderling cannot hit them in windy conditions or when made to run because of his huge backswing, Berdych inevitably breaks down under pressure, and Roddick, well he does not hit them with that explosiveness anymore.

This leaves us with three contenders.

Juan Martin del Potro won the U. S. Open ’09 with the biggest and flattest forehand ever seen in the tennis history. In the final, he outplayed Federer by hitting 37 forehand winners as opposed to only 20 by Federer. What makes his forehand so effective is not only the flatness and the speed, but the minimal backswing that he requires to unleash this stroke, which makes it ideal for all conditions and situations.

If Del Potro has the flattest forehand we have ever seen, Nadal has the loopiest one. It is not amazing is not that he can generate incredible amounts of topspin on all surfaces. What is amazing is how can do it time after time in the most pressure situations given the extremely unorthodox technique he has. Even more amazing is the variety and evolution of the forehand, be it the adjustment to make it flatter on hard courts and grass (he has four Majors on these surfaces now) or the ridiculously curving banana swing forehand on the run. Of course, you know the point is about to end once he shapes up to fly in the air and hit that inside out forehand.

But even Rafa’s forehand has its limitations, and even now he sometimes struggles to return fast, deep balls. But there is one person against whom it will be hard to find any such weakness. He hss the best of both the worlds—he can hit it flat and almost any desired angle, hit with huge topspin second only behind Rafa, hit it on the run or create winners from center of the baseline.

This clip of his Australian Open matchup against Tommy Haas demonstrates that what this man can do with his forehand borders on the realm of the impossible.

The main reason why his forehand (or for that matter, any shot) is so effective is because of his great footwork. During the days, when he was THE Roger Federer, and not FedError or Shankerer (as his fans lovingly call him), he had such control and confidence on this shot that the ball seemed to wait an extra fraction of second just before it hit his racket. Jason Goodall further describes the Federer forehand.

In fact, the Federer forehand is not only the best among the contemporaries, but is possibly the best forehand of all times. That his forehand is as eye pleasing as it can ever get only makes his case stronger.

Winner: Roger Federer

Close Seconds: Rafael Nadal, Juan Martin del Potro

Honorable Mentions: Tomas Berdych, Robin Soderling, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

Fearsome Firepower: The Serena Williams Forehand

The Women

Winner: Serena Williams

Close Seconds: Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Ana Ivanovic

Honorable Mentions: Svetlana Kuznetsova, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Samantha Stosur, Elena Dementieva

Articles in the same series

1.  The Serve

3. The Return of serve

4. The Volley

5. The Drop Shot

6. Movement

7. The Backhand

8. The Head

Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert

So the final Major of the year has ended too. New records were created, history was made, and future projections are being interpolated. Amidst all this, though, a lull has been created. The same month long lull which you face after the completion of Australian Open, with useless hard court tournaments like Indian Wells and Miami (I frankly don’t understand the need to play these tournaments between the completion of a hard court Major and the beginning of the clay court season. I thought the Masters were like appetizers for the Majors) or the useless clay court tournaments during July after Wimbledon.

The next big tournament is Shanghai Masters, which is still half a month away, and frankly, it is not even highly anticipated given that the tournaments which really matter—the Majors—are done for the year. And now that Rafael Nadal added the only missing link in his resume, I am left with the exhausting literature of crowing him as the new G.O.A.T. or how he will beat Roger Federer’s mark of 16 Majors, or why he cannot do that given the tender state of his knees. Or why Federer is still the G.O.A.T. Please. I am living in a Golden era of possibly the two best players of all time, and let me have the option of picking both of them over one.

I found it more interesting to browse youtube.com and came across this classic clip of Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert at the East Bourne final in 1979—a time when their rivalry was beginning to peak…precisely because of these kind of matches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ

—Just like all great rivalries, this one has that contrasting element too. Evert the cute, delicate lady, oozing feminism, while Navratilova the strong, masculine, but equally graceful. Martina the aggressor, Chris the defender. Martina with the in-your-face attitude, Chris the laid back classy girl. Or in playing styles, Martina the classic serve-n-volley player, Evert the baseliner.

—It is easy to notice how much game has advanced since then. Whenever these players are involved in rallies, it feels like they are having a nice little practice session in the park. The serve is very slow (probably high sixties mph), and the groundstrokes are no faster.  The ball makes a different type of noise unlike today’s crisp sounds, as it should be when hitting a wooden racket with ancient strings.

—The pace of play, however, increases considerably as Martina tries to approach the net time and again, either with a deep slice backhand in the middle, or by creating angles of her own and pushing Chris out of court.

—Talking about angles, both players were creating incredible angles. Watch the second point of the match where Chris strangled Martina with an incredible double-handed slice dropping just ahead of the net. The lefty had no chance on that one.

—Now that I think about it, creating angles was far easier in those days even with a wooden racket given that the weight of the shots was not much lesser compared to today giving players that extra fraction of a second. Imagine a girl trying to create the same angles on a forehand hit by Serena Williams or Maria Sharapova. The game is more exciting to watch today, but it was more beautiful then.

—Talking about weight of shots, Martina used her single-handed backhand only once in this clip, and relied exclusively on her slice.  Makes more sense considering that grass is much more responsive to the latter, especially against a baseliner, but Martina became much more dominant at Wimbledon after she developed her single hander.

—Who says grass doesn’t produce long rallies? At 1:24 in the clip, the ladies played an almost minute long rally spanning the full dimensions of the court. Chris kept pushing Martina away from the baseline with …. you guessed it, her cross-court forehand targeted towards Martina’s backhand. Martina barely kept herself in the point but ended it with a desperate passing shot on the run.

—The rallies looked so like the 70s. Evert’s forehand was almost exclusively limited to the cross court, hardly going down the line. Inside out forehand was, of course, absent, which wouldn’t come into picture until Ivan Lendl came and revolutionized the sport. Similarly, her backhand was mostly cross-court, but whenever she hit it down the line, it was hit deep with complete authority and confidence. Deservedly, her signature shot.

—Evert hit an almost impossible running forehand which evoked the reaction, “Oh! I don’t believe it!” by John Barrett. Well, good time to start believing it since Lendl was just across the corner, with Pete Sampras following him.

—Talking about Barrett, I love his commentary. Mostly subdued, hardly speaking more than necessary, and never during a rally. My experience of watching the tape of the Borg/McEnroe ’80 final was greatly enhanced by his broadcasting.

—Martina should have attacked Chris’s backhand much more. Difficult to do it with just a slice backhand.

—After an exhausting rally leaving both players catching for their breath, the chair umpire announced, “Game to Mrs. Evert Lloyd. Eight games all.” Evert closed her eyes for a second, opened it and gave out a smile. No wonder she is one of the most lovable female athlete ever.

—Is it just a coincidence, or do great returners always have better backhands than forehands? Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray. Add Evert to the list.

—No reaching for the towel between points. Priceless.

—Extreme sportsmanship spirit. You could hear the acknowledgements of good points with a “Yeah” or “Yup.”

—Evert painted the lines at least three times to save her third match point. That’s how good it has to be against the greatest female grass court player ever.

—The final two games of this clip are missing. Does anyone have them?

The weakest part of Nadal (his serve) was most impressive at this Open

When Rafael Nadal won his first two French Open titles in 2005 and 2006, it was said that he is a typical Spanish clay court grinder, who would fail to win a Grand Slam outside Paris, just like the Spaniards of the 90s. He reached the finals in ’06 and ’07, and won arguably the greatest match of all times beating the best grass court player of the era in ’08. After that, it was widely believed that hard courts will  always remain his Achilles Heels, due to the movement and the stress it puts on his knees. He promptly shattered the myth and won in Melbourne next year. After struggling with his knees, and his demolition by Juan Martin del Potro in New York, it was again established that he would never win the U.S. Open—ie the fast hard courts. The prediction strengthened further at Melbourne next year when he lost to Andy Murray in straight sets.

In short, there has never been a time when Nadal has not been doubted. And it is obvious in some ways. He always downplays himself, calls Roger Federer as the GOAT, saying he does not care about records or the No. 1 ranking, and that his only goal is to constantly improve his game. In the beginning, it was hard to believe what he said—after all, how can one be so politically correct and believe it all?—but it is established fact now.

For all the changes he has made to his demeanor—from the pirate attire and loud Vamoses to a more balanced look, his style of play, or the improvements in English, two things have remained constant with Rafa—his continuous zest to improve, and the joy he gets by winning every match, no matter at what stage of the tournament, as he had displayed by falling to the ground after winning against Fernando Verdasco in Australia, against Murray in Wimbledon, against Djokovic in Madrid, or even against Youzhny—not comparable to the top-5 by any means—to reach his first U.S. Open final. None of these matches were tournament finals (one was not even a Grand Slam).

And 2010 has been the year where we have seen a new Rafael Nadal. One who has not only improved himself in every facet of the game—most notably his serve and the half volley forehands from the baseline—but also taken over the mantle as the world’s best player. In the past, even though he held the No. 1 ranking, he was not comfortable with it. It was obvious with his body language, his demeanor, his shyness with the media. It is different now. His English—although still less than satisfactory—has improved, he has a Facebook account to connect with his fans, which he updates regularly, and has become a strong presence in the media, with his presence in the Hits of Haiti exhibition matches, the Federer-Nadal commercials, the Nike exhibition matches ….

More importantly, he connects with his fans better than before. After winning at French Open, the first thing he said to John McEnroe was that his next goal is New York. After winning against Murray at Wimbledon, he first thanked the crowd for their support to him even after he defeated the local favorite, and made it a point to thank them again after he won Wimbledon. And throughout the Open, all we could hear was, “I love New York. You people are amazing.”

And it is not just the way he connects with the fans. He is asserting his authority as the world No. 1. It was apparent by the way he pointed his finger to the umpire—something we never associated with him—when he was accused of taking on court coaching. Or the way he subtly conveyed his point about the quickness of the Grass Courts at Wimbledon by saying, “Everybody talks about Wimbledon is very slow. Maybe because I won two times, no?”

In fact, much of his success this year should be attributed to the improvements he has made on the social front. Federer is a perfect example of how your off court presence can immensely help to increase your aura on court, and this is exactly what Nadal has set out to do, finding the right balance between being authoritative and humble.

Just like Federer was—and still is—the face of Tennis since his dominance began at Wimbledon, Nadal is advancing from just being a great player and a fierce competitor on court, to becoming the face of Tennis. And what better way to be the poster-boy of the sport than by bombing 130mph serves with your wrong hand, and at the same time winning three consecutive Grand Slams with a hand worth half-a-million dollars?

Nadal and Djokovic will play for the Championship match at the US Open

As soon as Roger Federer’s final backhand went long, the Serb put his hands up in the air in jubilation—almost disbelief, then folded his hands and looked towards the almighty. Given that he has routinely looked to the skies to ask for divine intervention when things do not go his way—despite him giving his 100 percent—one would believe that he was thanking the almighty for finally helping him to break the losing streak against Federer.

I believe the story is a little different. Novak did not thank the divine for his win—he earned it himself by displaying a stubbornness to not lose this time around, even when he was a set down on two occasions (Federer is one of the best front runners in the history of the game), and more so when he was two match points down. He refused to lose today, and it was this belief—which was absent most of the times when he faced the Swiss—that helped him today than the ones present in the sky. Novak was actually thinking ahead of the final and asked the powers-that-be to wet the Arthur Ashe stadium on Sunday and give him that extra day of much needed rest to have a fair chance against Rafael Nadal.

Till now, Rafa’s run at NYC has looked similar to Federer’s run at Roland Garros last year. A difficult draw for Rafa opened up in the same way as it did for Federer last year. Now that Rafa is in his first US Open final, destiny wants one final test from Rafa to see if he really deserves to be the youngest player to achieve the career slam—by making him play against a well rested, fully recharged, confident and battle-ready Djokovic.

The task is tough for him. Nadal’s game matches perfectly for Djokovic in these super fast courts; in fact, all seven of the Serb’s victories against Nadal have come on hard courts, and he is two on two when they have met on the North American Deco Turf. The Djoker hits through the court with great penetration, and Nadal’s strongest shot—his cross court forehand—plays directly into Djokovic’s strength—his backhand. And Djokovic’s strength—the backhand down the line—plays into Nadal’s weakness—his backhand. These factors do not affect Nadal much on clay, where he can just keep the ball in play with his backhand, but once the ball zips fast and low, he is usually found struggling. And Djokovic should take advantage of this, the same way he played the match points against Federer, “I just closed my eyes, hit the forehands and hoped they go in.”

What impressed me most on Saturday, apart from Djokovic’s willpower, was Djokovic’s forehand, and the return of serve. It is now that we can finally say that Djoker’s forehand is no longer a liability, and the way he read Federer’s deliveries—even the first ones—was breath taking. In the fourth set, Federer served at 62 percent and yet lost it 6-2! When have we last seen this from the Maestro? Moreover, by battling through five tough sets and almost four hours, Djokovic has sent a strong message to Nadal, “I am no longer the sissy who would retire once the conditions get a little heated. I am here to stay and rally with you all day.” Remember that yesterday Federer was at his defensive best, especially in the fifth. While he is next only to Nadal on this front, I have never seen him fetch so many balls far behind the baseline for such long period of time.

Nadal knows all this, and he must be devising his own strategies ahead of the finale. He would probably not use the fast flat serves that he has used so effectively in the Open after looking at the way Djokovic read Federer’s first serve, considering that Federer has much more variety on the flatter serve than him. He would probably revert back to his vicious spinning serves—always difficult for a righty—and if he gets it right, it would trouble Djokovic especially if he stands close to the baseline like he did against Federer, and would push him back. This is what Rafa would wants because once Djokovic takes control of the rally, Rafa will run for his life at Ashe.

Technicalities aside, the factor most in favor of Djokovic would be the battle readiness. Nadal has not yet faced a quality opponent in the tournament who could really test him. Djokovic has already gone through the greatest player of all times. It might come in handy if he falls behind in the match, because he knows he has come back from behind just two days back.

All said and done, both are playing at their best, both are at their confident best, and with an extra day of rest, both will come into the final with a near equal energy level. Nadal has much more experience in a major final, but as Djokovic said, “I am more experienced at the US Open final.” And with lots at stake—Nadal’s career slam, and Djokovic’s shredding of the one-slam wonder tag—both want it equally bad. Even if Djokovic has denied the world of another Federer-Nadal final, the conditions look perfect for a great final match at the Arthur Ashe stadium, much needed after the one sided affair in the women’s side. And if this match would even be half as interesting as their slugfests on the clay courts, we are in for a thriller.

The stage is set for a Federer/Nadal showdown at New York

But it is not only the conditions, which have been responsible for this inevitable showdown. It has been the players themselves. Roger Federer said after his routine mauling against Robin Soderling that he now actually likes to play in windy conditions, that it doesn’t affect his service toss in any way—and the way he served against Soderling was ample proof of that—and that he can wake up at 2AM in the night and yet hit the first serves in. In fact, the way he succumbed Soderling to his feet was even more inspirational.

For all the talk of Federer needing to be more aggressive, venturing to the net more often, using chip-n-charge, and the now-stale news of Paul Annacone, he picked all of it, threw that in trash, and battled Soderling from the baseline, trading power blows—he won just six points at the net—with him and playing him at his own game. Champions are stubborn, and Federer (just like Pete Sampras) showed his stubbornness by beating Soderling at his own game. Not a wise thing to do in a quarter-final against a formidable opponent, but then this is why he is a 16 time Grand Slam champion, and I am …… well, just a wise man.

Rafael Nadal has been impressive in his own way. With a much improved serve north of 130mph, a flatter forehand, being aggressive by positioning closer to the baseline, Nadal has torn apart his part of the draw losing no sets, and just one service game.  And if Federer did his own trick with a second between-the-legs shot, Nadal countered it with his own 360-degree rotation half volley. Nadal has come with a purpose this time, and is looking stronger and fresher than ever with his hard court play.

With the top class form of both players, something we haven’t seen simultaneously from both players since Australian Open ’09—it is really THAT long that both haven’t met in a Grand Slam final—the fans can almost be heard saying, “Novak Djokovic, and Mikhail Youzhny, please get the hail out of New York so we can witness another Federer-Nadal final,” with no disrespect meant to either one of them (or am I kidding myself?)

So do they stand to play a spoilsport this time around?

Rafael Nadal vs Mikhail Youzhny

Youzhny has troubled Rafa in the past, taking him down in the Quarters before at the same venue, while stretching him to five at Wimbledon, but Nadal has usually felt comfortable in their matchup, and winning seven of the 11 matchups between them. Add to the fact that Nadal has been well rested—I repeat, well rested—in the tournament with all his matches slightly above two hours, and Youzhny might be spent after his five set battle with Stanislas Wawrinka, there is little chance that the Russian can come up with the upset. He is confident, though, of his chances that he love to be the “bad guy” by going further than he ever has in a Grand Slam. For that to happen, though, the nuts and bolts should fire at the same time, and he can give a tough time to Nadal with his flat strokes that penetrate well on this surface. It is unlikely, though, that this will happen.

Finalist: Nadal

Roger Federer vs Novak Djokovic

Djokovic has lost to Federer three straight times at the U.S. Open, and five straight times at the North American hard court tournaments. In the process, Federer has lost only two sets to the Serb compared to the 13 lost by the latter. Federer has mostly appeared in cruise control in all these five matches—except the one in Toronto—while Djokovic has mostly been overwhelmed. In short, Federer has owned Djokovic at the US Open. But then, is there a player who Federer has not owned at NYC? Apart from Juan Martin del Potro, he hasn’t lost to anyone here since he first won in 2004.

Can Djokovic reverse the trend? Sure. But for this, he needs to make sure he does not come out slow and looking mentally spent like he did for the first set and a half at Toronto. He needs to come out firing, with a nothing-to-lose mindset, go for the broke on the forehand, firing as he did for the latter half of their Toronto matchup, and be solid at his stronger wing—the backhand. Moreover, he needs to hope that Federer doesn’t come out in the same Godlike form as he did against Soderling. In short, the stars need to align in a pin point way for that to happen—exactly opposite of which has happened till now as I wrote above.

Djokovic has been in fine form so far not losing a set after his marathon five setter in the opening round, and having lost to Federer three consecutive times here, he got to favor his chances just basing it on law-of-averages. But then, these averages have not been true for the dozen other players whom Federer has dominated as well.

Finalist: Federer

Champion: Sit back, relax, and enjoy the Federer-Nadal final, but don’t ask me to predict!

A Grand Slam needs to have a signature moment. A moment which the fans will remember for a long time, the story of which will sometimes eclipse all other events. At Wimbledon this year, it was the Isner-Mahut saga that stole the story than the fact that Rafael Nadal completed his second Euro Slam. Last year, the Cinderella story of Melanie Oudin stole the show ahead of Juan Martin del Potro and Roger Federer (in fact, Federer’s tweener became much more discussed too).

Already four days into the Open, the final major at the Flushing Meadows was missing such a story. An event which not only displays high quality of the sport, but is backed up with lots of emotions and drama to compel even the most neutral fans of the game to vehemently take sies.

And when we talk of the Open, two things come to mind. An upcoming American player and a fifth set tiebreaker. And this was exactly what happened when I was half yawning as Andy Murray was steamrolling past his second round opponent (not that Murray was not playing good—in fact, I like Murray’s game a lot. Just that it is no fun watching a one sided affair. Which is why I usually skip Federer’s first week matches at a major). I saw the IBM Slam Tracker where the match between Ryan Harrison and Sergiy Stakhovsky (I assure you the spelling is correct—I looked it up at Google) just reached into the deciding set.

Sergiy Stakovsky fought the local hero Ryan Harrison in a fifth set tie-breaker

True to the American hype, Harrison was among the news after his first round win, and I decided to look up a bit on him during the changeover. To my surprise, I found the word “Nick Bollettieri” in his wikipedia entry. A surprise, because this kid looked anything but a product from that Academy. First, he looked small and less powerful—even though the ATP listed him as 6-feet-one—than most from the NB industry (think Andre Agassi, Jim Courier or Maria Sharapova).

The second surprise was the way he played. He had lots of flexibility, for one, which was even apparent even during his serve as he sufficiently bent his knees and spine, and even attempted some Clijsters’ type splits. Next, he never seemed like the hard hitting baseline ball basher as the former NBians. He possessed a good, smooth slice, made good, intelligent approaches and was never afraid to serve and volley even on the second serve.

For all the goods that the boy has, it sometimes become irritating to watch the crowd go totally against a perfectly normal player, even when he had done seemingly nothing wrong than competing well against the local hero. While crowd cheering on for the apparent villain’s unforced errors is nothing new (the French Open QF between Nadal and Robin Soderling comes to mind), it was the commentators’ total obsession with Harrison (who were being streamed live at usopen.org) to the point of even forgetting that the court contains two players is what adds to the emotions.

Sergiy understood it perfectly well too, which is why he tried nothing silly to start an uncontrollable crowd uproar. In fact, he mostly seemed visibly uninterested in the contest, to the point of looking rather amused at the whole situation as he let out some dry smiles in between the points. This is no way affected the way he played, though, as he himself showed thorough fighting spirits (perhaps the crowd turned him on) included with some courage as well.

With a beautiful all-court play of his own too, is it somewhat over rated that modern tennis has primarily become a baseline bashing game? Sure, most of the top ten have succeeded with such a style, but we do have players like Sergiy (and now Harrison), Michael Llorda, and the likes who keep the beauty of the touch game alive. And watching these players, there is hope that some day or the other a kid with such a style will come along with a mental strength of Nadal (both players committed double faults at 5-5 and 6-6 in the fifth set tie-breaker respectively) and will dominate the circuit.

18 year old Ryan Harrison impressed everybody with his athleticism

Will that kid be Ryan Harrison? He did not come out the better man today—it was Sergiy who fell to the court in relief, much to the ecstasy of me, if only to see the rude NY crowd and disillusioned broadcasters disappointed—but it would be great to see this all-court player become successful in the future. Today, though, it was about irrational emotions and beautiful all-court play. And with this, I have got my signature event for the 2010 US Open …… so far.

Kim Clijsters will look forward to defending her title at the Open

For the fourth, and the last, time of the year, it is time again to separate the cream from the milk, pick out the wheat from the chaff, to separate the tennis champions from the very good ones. It is the Grand Slam time again, featuring 128 players, seven matches (best-of-five among the men, best-of-three among the women), and two weeks of intense drama in the commercial capital of the world, New York City.

And the United States Open in New York is unique in itself to distinguish from the other three slams. If the Wimbledon is for the royal, laid-back, pristine, polite people appreciating the little things in tennis, U. S. Open is about glamour. The insanely high Center Court at the Arthur Ashe Stadium, matches under the flooding New York lights running late till the early morning, the Super Saturday (which has been under the scanner since the last few years due to the heavy toll it takes on the men’s finalists with back to back semis and finals), and the fifth set tie-breaker, all set this final Slam apart from the other three.

If the tennis is unique, the atmosphere is no different.  New Yorkers involve themselves fully into the Slam as well, and they have their own favorites. Merely good tennis not sufficient to win this elusive major, because the audience will make sure to feel a player absolutely unwanted at Ashe in case he or she manages to aggravate them. We know what happened to Novak Djokovic in 2008, or Serena Williams last year. We also know how Jimmy Connors seemed to thrive at the Flushing.

If just the name “United States Open” is sufficient to bring a chill down your spine with excitement, the story lines preceding before the “Open” are more reasons to start counting days (now hours). On the women’s side, Caroline Wozniacki surprisingly finds herself at the top of the tree owing the pullout of Serena (which probably will be enough to shut down the critics who were all over the media questioning the state of her injury in the last one month), without even winning one significant title before Montreal. She may be the highest ranked player, but no one will mistake her as the best player, or the favorite, as the one just behind her, Kim Clijsters, is the defending champion and the second seed, followed by the two time champion Venus Williams, who is supposed to feature a new series of her self designed attire this time around.

Who will meet whom will once again be decided by the draws, which always plays an important part in the way a Grand Slam shapes up.

Wozniacki’s Quarter

The quarter is surrounded by two girls on whom the bets will be more conservative than their seeds suggest. Wozniacki has played intensely through out this year despite injuries, and has not done well in the Slams after her maiden final appearance at the same venue. Her commendable performances, though, have both come on hard courts in the same continent, as a finalist in Indian Wells and titleholder at Montreal. Which is why it was surprising to many when she chose not to pull out from New Haven just a week before the Open, and even there she is playing with her full strength into a third set tiebreaker with Elena Dementieva.

On the other side, we have Li Na, always a consistent performer at the majors, albeit not a strong one. Which is why, the favorites, the two Ovas, appear somewhere in between the chart. Maria Sharapova, who has been on the rise ever since her first round exit at Australia (especially her serve which has improved since the start of the year), and Svetlana Kuznetsova who has found some of her form as well. With both being former title holders at this place as well, I don’t see the top seed justifying the honor given to her (especially if she starts thinking too much about it given the media pressure).

Semifinalist: Maria Sharapova

Maria Sharapova is one of the top contenders at the Open

Jankovic’s Quarter

The first name that took my immediate notice (and there are very few worth attention in this quarter—who are these women?) was the Marin Cilic equivalent in the WTA—Yanina Wickmayer. Fantastic last year at the Open, she was expected to make in roads in the ever chaotic top-ten, but she has had hardly any results to show for, especially after her entertaining battle with Justine Henin at Melbourne. Is she primed again to rise at the Open? Highly likely, given that the other top women here are struggling themselves. Jankovic disappeared after Indian Wells, and just when we thought that Vera Zvonareva has been improving mentally with her uncharacteristically calm all throughout Wimbledon, she again showed her true self by suffering from a emotional meltdown in the doubles final. Petrova and Radwanska are always dangerous floaters but inconsistent to last five matches. Given all this, the stage is set for the lefty Belgian to make her comeback.

Semifinalist: Yanina Wickmayer

Venus’ Quarter

Look closely, and you will find a very familiar name here. USA and Russia had dealt with the Cold War for most of the later half of the nineties, but Melanie Oudin (and the New York crowd) staged a full fledged “Open” war against the Russians last year, as the teenage sensation romped apart four Russians on her way to the most inspiring run that we have seen in recent times. It’s a shame, then, that the household name crumbled under pressure after that, and with a truck load of points to defend, Oudin will needs a very good performance here.

Francesca Schiavone, on the other hand, has been on a high after her shocking French Open victory, and she’s been realistic to assume that it was a pleasant surprise rather than the signs of things to come, and enjoying life after that. Venus has not been in a semifinal outside Wimbledon for what? three years now, and given her injury with the knees, she will be struggling herself. Pennetta cooled down after her brief entry in the top-ten, and Shahar Peer is consistent, but with lack of weapons to make an impact.

With Serena not in the Open this time around, Venus has a great opportunity to win her first Slam outside Wimbledon in NINE years. If that was not enough, the cupcake draw will make her feel even more confident.

Semifinalist: Venus Williams

Clijster’s Quarter

It was a fairy tale ride last year for Clijsters, as she played without any pressure in only her third tournament after her motherhood. With a fabulous crowd support, Clijsters lived her dream, and even her daughter Jada, became a baby celebrity. Things are a lot different now. She is now the second seed, and the heavy favorite. All eyes will be on her, not only with admiration and curiosity, but also with expectations.  To her credit, she has played well with wins in Miami, and Cincinnati, but has suffered epic meltdowns in the Slams.

Alongside her, will be the new top-10 player Samantha Stosur, the surprise Wimbledon semifinalist, and the hard hitting Petra Kvitova, always a tricky customer Marion Bartoli, and capable-of-making-an-upset Alisa Kleybanova. Oh! And there is Ana Ivanovic too, who briefly regained her form at Cincinnati, but again went into oblivious with an ankle injury. Fate has not been kind on the Serb. And before I forget, there is Dementieva (I bet you have heard this name before), the best-women-ever-not-win-a-slam. But will her Mom again come with a I’m-gonna-burst-into-tears-anytime-now face?

This is Clijster’s surface and both her Slams have come on this very court. I see no reason why a third can’t come this year.

Semifinalist: Kim Clijsters

Semifinals: Sharapova d. Wickmayaer, Venus d. Clijsters

Champion: Venus Williams

Roger Federer

After a month long lull, the tennis season is back again in full sprint. Toronto is already over, and Cincinnati is well underway, so there is plenty of news for a tennis fan to stay busy. I have been following Cincinnati this week too, but it is interesting how my interest level for the first few rounds dropped significantly for this tournament compared to what it was for Toronto. I guess the month long lull did its trick effectively, as I was game for watching any high level tennis regardless of whether my favorite players were playing or not. Things are different in Cincinnati, though. The atmosphere is similar as Toronto, but the empty seats around the stadium is a deterrent to the enthusiasm.

Which is why, I stopped watching the play today when Robin Soderling was struggling against the steady, but not explosive, counter punching for Lleyton Hewitt, and turned my interest to other things, most specifically the trick shot by Roger Federer for Gillette, and tried hard to figure out whether the video was for real or fake. After repeated viewings, I finally gave up (if it is indeed real, then kudos to Roger Federer—but this is what we expect of you, if it is fake, then good job Gillette) and used the “Related Videos” feature of YouTube, and landed on a video, which immediately took my attention.

Federer was in his twenties, and was rapidly rising the ranks in the ATP and beginning to garner attention. It would still be another five months when he will beat Pete Sampras at his own turf, so he was still not that famous.

Roger Federer’s Interview in 2001

—He doesn’t look strikingly different from his looks today, but the pimples on his face gave away his age. He had just crossed 20 a few months ago.

—He took names like Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Todd Martin, Martina Hingis etc—the names we rarely hear about today. It is obvious that Federer is the only common link between the 90s and the 00s.

—No matter how great you are, or you will become, you need good mentorship. Federer highlighted that point himself, but he also highlighted how Hingis helped him a lot during the Hopman Cup. He may have had idols like Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg, but it probably was her compatriot whom he looked up to. “I knew I had a great chance to play with Martina.” Three years later, Martina would be wondering the same in her head.

—Even during those days, he did not look uncomfortable with the media. His command on English was very good—of course with a European accent—and he still felt comfortable talking in length about what ever was asked, and in a very candid manner. When asked what he learned from Martina, he replied, it was not only her professionalism, but how she handles the press with her world No. 1 status. Clearly, the technicalities were not the only part of the sport that attracted him. No wonder, that he has been the best ambassador that Tennis ever had.

— Regardless of the comfort level with the media, his body language was so different as we see today. Then, he felt humbled at being interviewed at length, it felt like an honor, and that showed in his posture, the way he spoke. It is different today. The media feels honored to interview him, and that shows.

—He was the ball boy at the ATP tournament in Basel. Today the Center Court at the club is named after him. Things change.

—He admitted he cried after his win in a Davis Cup match. He has done the same at least sixteen times more in his life.

—For all his exploits on grass and hard courts, it should not be forgotten that he is among the all time great indoor players. Only Sampras and Ivan Lendl have won more Year End Championships (five) than Federer (four).

—Federer said it would be difficult for one player to dominate the tour, like Sampras did in the 90s because of the way the game is evolving and how there are specialists for each surface. Oh, what did he know!

—The seeds are grown right from the early ages. The serve and the forehand were always his favorite shots. Years later, the latter was termed as “liquid whip.”

—A lot of people said that he will win a Grand Slam title in two or three years. He said that that will probably come at Wimbledon or the U. S. Open. He won his first major two years later, and those two slams went on to become his most successful slams. Talk about dreams-come-true. Or talk about astrology.

—Here is something that I never knew. Roger Federer was compared to Anna Kournikova because he hadn’t won a title till then. At that time, it may have been a derogatory remark to the pretty blond Russian. Today, she must be feeling proud of herself.
Okay, now back to Cincinnati.

Andy Murray defended his title at Canada Masters by beating Roger Federer in straight sets

As Roger Federer‘s forehand lob went outside the baseline on the championship point, Andy Murray let out a slight scream of joy, went to his support crew for a little celebration, and looked happy. When he gave the presentation speech, though, the same elation was replaced by contention. So was his body language while collecting the trophy, doing with the champion’s walk, and posing for the photographers. He was happy, no doubt about it. But he has been in this place before winning the Master’s titles four times before, including one in Canada. His mind must have wandering towards the bigger prize the proceedings of which starts two weeks later at New York–the U. S. Open.

Federer edged past Djokovic in a late night thriller

Two weeks ago, Roger Federer’s era was almost over, and even winning a slam for the champion was considered a monumental task. As of today, Roger Federer is the favorite to win the Roger’s Cup at Toronto (you think?), and is probably a bigger favorite than Rafael Nadal at the U. S. Open.

Two weeks ago, Federer was criticized for his post-match comments after his loss against Thomas Berdych at Wimbledon, and it was said that the big hitters in Berdych, Robin Soderling, and Juan Martin del Potro have figured him out. Yesterday, Federer beat one of them when that person was playing an extremely high quality match.

People like to write off champions very quickly. I said before too that the North American turf is where Federer feels at his absolute best, despite his better results and absolute dominance on grass. And primarily because this is where he can hit even the backhand winners at will due to the faster pace and lower bounce.

* * * *

The two semifinals today couldn’t have been more contrasting in the way they turned out, but ultimately they had the same underlying story. Despite Andy Murray’s success against Nadal on the synthetic turf, Nadal has usually had the upper hand in the rivalry. And due to this, Murray has always come with the mindset of “all-or-nothing.” He knows that his routine counterpunching style will be murdered by the Spaniard, and the only way to come on top is to hit big and huge, make Rafa run all around the court, and hope for the best.

He displayed exactly the attitude in their meeting at the Australian Open (which was the best I had seen Murray play till date) and he had a similar mindset today. And while in that match, Rafa was still running Murray close, he has many other problems on the faster turf. First, his serve, which was so effective at Wimbledon, fails him here. As much as Rafa’s serve has improved, it still has loads of limitations—he cannot hit a good wide angled serve from the deuce court to unbalance the returner (which he does effectively from the ad court), and he cannot hit a bomb down-the-T from the ad-court (which he can do from the deuce court).

Murray knew this weakness of Rafa makes him a much more readable server, and with the extraordinary returning skills of the Scot, Rafa was pretty much running around the court with a good Murray return. And once Rafa is on the run, he cannot dominate with his forehand like he does on natural turfs. Murray did well to make sure that his cross court forehand was deep—even if lacking velocity—and the backhand is of course his strength, and hence Nadal was struggling to find space and unleash his huge inside-out forehand.

Murray eased past Nadal in straight sets

Even when Nadal was on the offensive, he knew that he could not hit a winner unless he goes for broke, because his topspin forehands would be returned back nice and deep, rather than high and short due to Murray’s great retrieving skills. He started aiming for the lines and missed them as a result.

Of course, for all this to work out well, Murray had to make sure to get out of his comfort zone, and be aggressive on both his returns and the ground game, or else perish away with Nadal’s relatively stronger offense. Murray realized it and executed it perfectly.

A similar scenario was faced by the other two semi-finalists, albeit at different moments during the match. Novak Djokovic came out sleeping, and Federer came out firing on all cylinders and before the crowd settled into the match, Federer was up a set (6-1) and a break (leading 2-0) with Djokovic almost down and out. Djokovic realized he had nothing to lose, and went berserk. He started attacking Federer’s second serve brilliantly, and read the first serves nicely, traded blow after blow from his backhand to Federer’s forehand, and never flinched an eye to hit a forehand winner—his weaker wing—close to the lines.

The one sided affair for Federer slowly turned a little uncomfortable, followed by competitive, and followed by defeat scaring at his face. At 4-4 and 15-40 down on his serve in the decider, the situation was desperate was Federer as he couldn’t afford to miss one first serve, or Djokovic will blast a fast deep return on his second, and take control of the rally. Federer—who was struggling to land a first ball in the court for most of the third—responded with three consecutive first serves, two of them aces, and one a service winner, and confidently closed out the game. Unable to break, Djokovic had his face to the wall serving to stay in the match at 5-6. He couldn’t land one first serve for the first five points and ultimately shanked a backhand wide on the match point.

Today was all about execution at the most desperate moments—for Murray it was the whole match; for Federer and Djokovic it was at different points in the match. Of course, things could have been different had Nadal challenged a Murray’s second serve at a break point up in the first set (which could have possibly won him the set), but the result might not have been different because of the way Murray executed his game plan. Similarly, the result could have been different in the second semifinal had the two players swapped their mindset when push came to shove. It was Federer who came out with a better one when it mattered.

And tennis at the very top depends highly on this factor.

* * * *

Federer has shown flashes of the form he displayed while winning at Cincinnati last year, but he can get a lot better. The forehands are still going long. The backhands are still missing by a margin. The first serve still demands higher numbers. The important thing, though, is he has started to win these close matches which he was conveniently losing during the earlier part of the year. Against Berdych, it was 7-6 in the third, today it was 7-5 in the third when he faced two virtual match points on his serve.

Murray matched his performance at the Australian Open Quarters today in Toronto, but as it happened in the finals at Melbourne, playing Federer is an entirely different ballgame than playing Nadal. It will all come down to how much comfortable Murray will feel operating outside his comfort zone against a Federer who is brilliant, erratic, but supremely confident.

Prediction: Federer in three sets.

Federer defeated Berdych in a nail-biting three setter to reach the semis at Toronto

This year, Berdych has shown enough of mettle to translate his raw potential into quantifiable results, his consecutive semis and final appearance in Roland Garros and Wimbledon respectively being one and his consecutive victories against Federer—one at the latter’s favorite turf at Wimbledon—being other. The word “consecutive” was the key here. Apart from Rafael Nadal, there is not one player who can boast three consecutive victories against the Swiss maestro and hence there was enough doubt whether the former-headcase nut would get the third time lucky as well.

Berydch knew it quite well, and he responded accordingly. The number of times he dig deep to keep this match an extremely fascinating affair was dramatic. He put away the five break point opportunities in the second set to finally push the match into the decider, played three courageous points at 0-40 down in the third set, and further played an exquisite service game to consolidate his break of serve at love. If this was not all, he survived the crowd whistling against him in between points, and even when the lady luck went against him in the opening point of the tie-break when a net-cord went against him, he fought deep and hard to come back on serve despite being two mini-breaks down.

If I were to characterize Berdych’s performance today, it was firepower from the outside and loads of ice from the inside—he was an Iceberg today. And the Iceberg was large and solid enough to break any ship down—even the Titanic.

And break he did. Federer’s ship may have been sinking lately, but the way he played out the first set, and most parts of the second—including the clutch serving at 15-40 down multiple times during the second set—he looked a different player today. Not the Federer of the old, but an old Federer with new weapons—rather strategies. He varied his first serves greatly by including a mix of heavily sliced kicking serves in addition to his bombs down-the-T (some of his first serves were in the 80s and yet they won him free points), obviously made greater approaches to the net, and used greater varieties on his forehand side than just trading blows with the big hitters as he was seen doing most of the year. And most importantly, he seemed more intent on attacking the second serves, especially running around his backhand and hit his authoritative forehand.

Strategies aside, what was heartening to see was the timely “Come On!” yells after winning a big point. Time and again, we have felt that Federer saves himself up for the slams now, and uses the Masters as tune ups. But if today’s match was an indication, he wanted this match as badly as he wanted the Wimbledon final last year. Maybe it is because he wants the Masters shields as badly, or maybe because it was Berydch at other side of the net—we won’t know.

It is tempting to see all the subtle changes in Federer’s approach and call it the Paul Annacone effect—his new “trial” coach—but I feel the changes have been more on part of Federer himself, the addition of Annacone is more about gaining some good company on your side, to gather some confidence. Annacone has spent far too little time with him to effect these changes. But actually that will be the role of Samrpas’ former coach after all.

Coming back to Berdych, it is easy to say that he cracked under pressure. That he should have effectively served out the match at 5-3. That he shouldn’t have been distracted by the crowd. It is much more difficult to see that he kept his composure almost all throughout the match and played a high quality match, and was denied victory only by the brilliance of the Swiss Man, even if he was shanking his forehands and backhands once in a while.

Berdych, the Ice Berg, was hit by the Titantic today, and there were equal chances for the Titanic to collapse, or the Ice Berg to break down. The tide kept on tilting one way to the other, but it was not the Ice Berg which broke today.  It was the Titanic which survived after hitting it. And there is no shame in that. Berdych knew that and he thought it better to still acknowledge the crowd with a smile when he had every reason not to do so. The Berdych of the old would not have done that.

I would be watching Berdych closely during the U. S. Open. But before that, I’m looking forward to tomorrow, when for the first time since U.S. Open ’08, we will have the Big-4 in the semis—Nadal vs Murray, Federer vs Djokovic. Predictions, anyone?

Ana Ivanovic has reached the Quarter Finals of Cincinnati

The world never ceases to amaze. More specifically, the game of tennis never ceases to amaze. It is old news that the pretty girl from Serbia, the former world No.1 and the 2008 French Open champion Ana Ivanovic is suffering an extended sophomore syndrome after a highly successful 2008. Her service toss is awful, her ground strokes lack penetration and are error prone, arguably the best inside-out forehand in Women’s tennis (after Steffi Graf) is not at the level where it should be, and the inability to win two consecutive matches have been the least of her worries.

The major worries have been deep down in the mind. During the initial part of her decline it was her denial mode—she claimed herself as one of the contenders before U.S. Open ’09 and she failed to win her opening match after leading by a set and 3-1 in the second. During the later part, it has been her confidence when she accepted the situation, and tried everything possible to make a comeback—even tried to divert her mind with a stint with playboy magazine—but apparently nothing seemed to work. And if you are short on confidence, nothing is ever going to work for you. Ask Rafael Nadal during the later half of 2009 when he was struggling to stay apace with the players whom he is routinely beating right now. Or ask Roger Federer who did everything right in the Australian Open 2009 only to lose it all in the fifth set.

If you believe in yourself—are confident in your abilities—you will find a way out of trouble, either by raising your level, or by making your presence felt and forcing the level of your opponent to drop. There is usually no substitute for confidence.

Err..maybe there is. Anger. And motivation. I saw one of the episodes of the great Indian epic, Mahabharat, where the greatest archer of that era, Arjun, was constantly staring at the fire and feeling the heat. When Lord Krishna asked why, he told that he was raising his anger which will help him fight against his enemies better. It directly leads to motivation—if of course, used positively (like how John McEnroe used it, and not like Marat Safin or Goran Ivanisevic).

This is what has happened to the Serbian beauty. She is struggling after being dropped 64 places in the space of two years, and organizers at Montreal Masters thought it to be the apt time to kick an already demotivated celebrity and make her go further down. Ivanovic asked for a wild card, and Montreal denied it even though Ivanovic has done lots to promote this tournament.

“The way I analyzed it was that, yes, she’s a player who has done a lot for our tournament, almost saved it one year. She has a lot of charisma. Everyone likes her. But the fact is that she hasn’t demonstrated (with her play) that she deserves a wild card. It’s not the same as a player who has been injured and away for a while. … She is the one who dropped down to No. 65, not because of an injury. If I were her coach, I’d force her to play qualies.”

Ouch! That hurts. Deep. The anger from Ivanovic’s side was understandable as it was not a mere case of a request being turned down. It was outright embarrassment. The organizers realized their mistake and later offered her a wild card, but she promptly turned it down.

And when such an incident happens, you can only go two ways. Either take the kick on the rear end and go further down, or face up, take the kick in the stomach, get hurt during the process but show your desire to fight. This is exactly what Ivanovic has done.

Her progress at Cincinnati has been worthy of notice after she has won three straight games, and reached into the final four. She has only lost one set during the process (and that against the heavyweight Victoria Azarenka), has committed only 9 double faults in three matches (usually that was the number she boasted in one single set), and has not lost her serve in the last two matches. Pretty impressive, eh? Not yet. Her six set victories in the tournament so far include some impressive figures, 6-2, 6-1, and 6-0 beat downs, one in each match. Now Ivanovic is talking—fist pumping.

Her quarterfinal looks acceptable as she will play Amanmuradova (probably some Russian. Does that mean she chokes too?). She has already reached the semis of Rome this year (before losing her way yet again in French Open and Wimbledon), but this time there seems to be a fire in her belly. It has come to the point where she not only needs to prove herself, but make a statement.

Sometimes a kick in the rear does more wonder than varieties of coaching. Though only when there is enough muscle to take that punch in the stomach.

Rafael Nadal dispatched Thomas Berdych in straight sets towards his second Wimbledon title

—First title at any surface is very special, but the second one makes it even better as it proves the first one was not a fluke. And Nadal has shown an all round improvement in his game, most notably his serve, his flatter ground strokes, his skill at the net (he was 23/26 at the net against Andy Murray—is he the most underrated, and perhaps the best, volleyers of the era?) and of course, the returns.

This graphic shows not only shows how he placed himself much closer to the baseline in Wimbledon compared to the French Open, but also why it is so difficult to win the French Open-Wimbledon double. Imagine returning serves zipping at a much higher speed of the ground with less time on your hands (compared to clay). And all that in a matter of two weeks without much practice on the green turf.

—Is it time to transfer the title of the ‘Queen of Grass’ from Venus Williams to Serena? She has one less title than her elder sibling, but it is she who looks more likely to win the same crown next year. Maybe not yet, but if she serves those 89 aces and hits her high kicking second serves the next year as well, who knows she may not lose a single set at Wimbledon for 14 consecutive matches?

—Thomas Berdych finally is making full use of his talent, but unless he stops blowing away a 6-2 lead in the second set tie-breaker, I’m afraid, he’ll have to contend with the runner’s plate, than the Golden trophy. After all, Nadal is not Novak Djokovic.

—Speaking of the Serb, I’d much rather see the arrogant, chest-thumping, “I have three words for Roger, he’s going down” Djokovic than the humble sportsmen embracing the opponent after defeat, all the while raising his hands in desperation before/during/after a rally at the Wimbledon semi-finals. The world doesn’t conspire against you, Novak. It is you.

Gracefulness is a good characteristic to have off the court, but not at the cost of competitiveness on court. Rafa, anyone?

—It is the first time since November 2003, that Roger Federer has found himself outside the top-2. Is this the end of the Federer-era? If by an era, we mean the days of two or three slams a year, then yes. If it mean that he is done winning Slams, then no. Despite his win at Wimbledon ’09 and loss at the US Open finals, his best tournament—in terms of personal form and domination—was at Cincinnati.  And that was played on the same surface, under same conditions as the US Open.

—Talking about losing finalists, the forever-headcase Vera Zvonareva was back at her best after showing uncharacteristic calm and composure during the ladies singles tournament. In the doubles finals, she was back to crying, breaking her racket and suffering an emotional meltdown. Safe to say that the Zvonareva in the singles semis and finals was the exception rather than the norm?

—Murray is definitely shattered, but he should take solace from the fact he is improving. His serve was more consistent than Australia including the second ball, the returns are as good as ever, and he still dispatches 90% of the tour with relative ease (he lost only one set before facing Nadal). His forehand is a big point of concern, though, and it is where he should spend his entire summer before the summer hard court stint. He even plays the big points well, just that he found an opponent in the semis who play them better.

—Is it a mere coincidence that Robin Soderling had to play a five set match before each of his three Slam meetings against Federer or Nadal (French Open ’09 and ’10 finals, Wimbledon ’10 QFs) after his historic win against the latter? It is no coincidence, though, that he underperformed in all three of these contests (of course, the quality of the opponent is responsible too). Perhaps fitness should be appended in his TODO list after ‘hands-at-the-net’ and backhand slice.

—The Sampras quote of Wimbledon being more about the returns than the serve holds true again. Nadal was not in any of the serving stats, be it number of aces, service winners or the fastest serve, but he led the chart in what matters most—32 break points won. That is four and a half per match. For winning a match, you require three (disregarding the tie-breakers).

Of course, he is already leading the year for the most break points saved.

—There needs to be a serious look at the way rules are imposed, most notably regarding the on court coaching. The 2010 champ was fined $2000 after a warning for on-court coaching, when television replays suggested none. Justine Henin, on the other hand, was not even considered for this offense when she was getting full advice from her coach Carloz Rodriguez during her match against Kim Clijsters. Thomas Berdych repeatedly looked towards his camp for a nod on a hawkeye challenge in his match against Federer.

“This is a joke, ” was John McEnroe’s reaction. Perhaps he meant, “You cannot be serious!”?

—If you ever want to see a wolf slaughtering a lamb on a tennis court (of course, figuratively) go watch the replay of Petra Kvitova beating Caroline Wozniacki. It will only take you 14 games and 46 minutes.

—This is an FYI for the absolute tennis nuts. The Wimbledon 26^th seed Lucie Safarova is the girlfriend of the Wimbledon finalist Berdych. And yes, Kim Sears and Murray are back together. Oh, and Murray is a big fan of Nadal.

Isner and Mahut are still a part of conversation

—If you’re wondering why there has been no mention of the most historic saga at this year’s Championship; I waited for it to get the “last but not the least” mention. There is an entire article on the wikipedia on the John Isner, Nicolas Mahut marathon. Mahut may have been devastated after the loss, and Isner may not have added a single ace to his tally of 113, but who cares? The pride and recognition after this historic match is much more valuable than a fourth round at Wimbledon, right? Add to this the fact that you made the front page of Guardian and Telegraph, both reputed British news agencies, over the news of England qualifying for the round-of-16 in the Football World Cup.

—More thoughts on Rafa coming soon.

Years later, we can expect a similar conversation to be something like, “You remember the time when no Grand Slam other than the US Open had a fifth set tie-breaker? John Isner and Nicolas Mahut played the longest ever tennis match, which went for three days, and was stopped at 59-59 on day two. Oh, those previous generations!”

And 10 hrs later, they are still going strong

Maybe this conversation will actually take place if the Grand Slams decide to introduce the fifth set tie-breaker after witnessing this inhumanly long fifth set that went on and on … an on and when play was ultimately suspended after the match duration clocked exactly 10 hrs. Words would fail to describe the amount of physical effort demonstrated by these two lion-hearted tennis players as they kept on bombing one big serve after another, even when seemingly unable to move on the court. Their shoulders were drooping, sweat was literally flowing out of their polos, the legs were refusing to stand up, and the hands were all but unable to lift themselves to hold the racket.

Yet, it would be a gross understatement to merely mention about the strong willpower of both the players—gladiators (for once, the term doesn’t sound like a cliché). Minutes passed by, hours were accumulated, 10-all converted into 20-all into 35-all into 50-all …… and time and again the players found themselves in tricky positions (like 0-30) or down break points—effectively match points— at 15-40 or 30-40. But they were stubborn enough to gather the last ounce of strength and fire one more cannon ball to get out of those landmines and level the match. They still had enough belief in themselves to hit an approach shot and dive around for a volley winner.

If people applaud Rafael Nadal for the never-say-die spirit and Roger Federer for his never-let-go attitude, then what about these gladiators?

Federer may have struggled today increasing the anguish of his already concerned fan base, Nikolay Davydenko may have again failed to deliver in Slams, Andy Roddick’s confidence may have soared to new heights and Nadal may have been enjoying a great day off watching Germany and England march into the next round at the FIFA World Cup, but there was nothing that could shatter anyone’s attention from the epic (as I said before, it is rare that such a term doesn’t sound like a cliché) that was happening at Court No. 18—far far away from the Centre Court where the Queen will grace her presence come tomorrow.

And if the players were courageous enough to keep themselves going by refusing to blink, then spare a thought for the chair umpire who sat at the same place for eight long hours turning his head from one part of the court to the other, and still being professional enough to perform his duties up to his full potential and requesting the crowd to be “Quiet, please!” amidst the unending announcements of “Game player-X. Y games all, final set.”

However, the bigger question that is going to be asked once the match will get over (hopefully tomorrow?) is whether to reconsider the rule of not having a fifth set tie-break. Sure, it was because of the lack of one that we got to witness the 9-7 ending at the 2008 final or the 16-14 epic a year later in 2009, but is all this excitement worth at the cause of two players struggling for air on court? Isn’t it inhuman to let the players to play for eight long hours without allowing them a break, giving them time to regroup, perhaps have some food down their stomachs?

In fact, wouldn’t it be better to have a tie-break, say, after 12-12 or even 20-20 in the fifth set, if not at 6-6? For all the talk of “fifth set is only about the will rather than skill” or “only the mentally tough players survive the fifth set,” wouldn’t we get enough proof of the same once the players cross a certain limit in the decider?

Nobody knows whether the ITF will ponder on such thoughts once this match gets over. All we know right now is that today was one example when the players transcended their main objective of winning against losing, and showed the world the attributes of competitiveness, refusing to surrender and enough respect for the opponent. All the while showing sporting brilliance.

And if this is what this sport is all about, then every tennis fan should be proud of being one. I, for one, was one, and certainly am more than before!

—The contest between the defending ladies champion Serena Williams and Michelle Larcher de Brito must have been the most attended game of the day. Not because of the spectacle of tennis on offer (Serena won the contest in straight sets), but because of the amount of decibels exploded in the AELTC. So what if the attendance in the game was meek? People still were part of the game, if only through the ears.

—Robby Ginepri and Kei Nishikori were have recently come on to play the tour again after injuries, in fact, this was the first tournament for the Japanese after his come back. And guess who they were greeted with? No. 6 seed Robin Soderling, and the No. 2 seed Rafael Nadal, both of whom had just contested in the final at the French Open. Talk about great come backs. Or about bad luck.

—Soderling was two sets and a break up against Ginepri during a certain changeover. In normal circumstances, such a player would seemingly look relaxed on the chair, calmly sipping down water or helping himself with a banana. Instead, the magnanimous Swede performed his usual routine of immersing his head into his famous towel. Probably already thinking ahead of his possible showdown against Rafael Nadal?

— Maria Sharapova blasted 15 winners against only 12 errors, committed only two double faults, lost only one game in the match and seven points on her serve. Is this the same Russian who committed 20+ double faults in her first round exit at the Australian Open?

—Continuing the talk on serve, Nadal hit eight aces in his 14 service games. Contrast this to the 2008 Final at the same place, when he had hit only six aces in his 30 service games (not to count the two tie-breaks), when he was supposedly at the peak of his powers.

—Andy Murray, the local boy and the fourth seed, was scheduled to play his first match on Court No. 1. Victoria Azarenka (the fourteenth seed), on the other hand, was offered the prestige of the Centre Court. Take your pick as the reason for this discrepancy:

1. Murray has requested the AELTC to let him stay away from all the attention which in turn leads to increased pressure.
2. Wimbledon, and the British, have given up their hopes on Murray as their ultimate hope for a Grand Slam champion—something they never did with Tim Henman.
3. It was just a coincidence. You journalists analyze (or try to analyze) things way too much…duh!

—The grand old woman of the WTA, Kimiko Date Krumm, fought valiantly in the second set (she won 7-6) before bowing out 1-6 in the third.

—In the third set, Soderling faced two break points at15-40 on his serve. Forty seconds, three aces and a service winner later, he had won the game. Ginepri’s reaction did not change much after those forty seconds. Talk about the term ‘clinical.’

—Nadal slipped two times on grass today in the space of five minutes! Roger Federer slipped once yesterday. The road towards another “FeDal” showdown is indeed slippery.

—The serving giants, John Isner and Nicholas Mahut, have hit a combined 54 aces in their first round match. They are still tied at two sets apiece.

Wimbledon Championships begin on June 21st

Wise minds have said that great transitions must happen smoothly and slowly for best results. The opposite is true in Tennis as the French Open champion Rafael Nadal got a mere two days (that is including his necessary duties as the Grand Slam champion, and traveling from Paris to London) to get acquainted to the nimble footwork, fast court speed and the relatively low bouncing lawns of the Queens Club from the slow, high bouncing and slippery clay courts of Roland Garros.

This transition between the two most contrasting surfaces in tennis is fast, in fact, too fast for many people to adjust completely, and the two tournament grass court season is way too short for most people to comprehend, but these two anomalies, in fact, are a boon to the game. The green lawns of Wimbledon and the pristine white clothing provide a different viewing pleasure to the eyes from the long, grueling clay court season with slippery courts, red socks and remnants of foot marks. Moreover, the shortness of season further accentuates the status of Wimbledon as the most sort after Grand Slam of the four—the Holy Grail of Tennis.

Being the oldest and the most prestigious slam also gives this tournament many luxuries. The strict dress code, the traditions and most importantly the altering the tournament seeds based on grass court skill and form instead of ATP rankings. Roger Federer has been seeded No. 1 despite him losing his world No. 1 ranking to Nadal after French Open, Andy Roddick has been seeded ahead of Robin Soderling and Nikolay Davydenko, while Lleyton Hewitt has been 11 places higher at No. 15—an assurance of avoiding any top players till round four. While some may argue the seedings as wrong or unfair and point out nitpicks in their ranking, it is indeed refreshing to see these changes. After all, how could one expect Nadal as the bigger favorite than Federer when the latter, the defending champion, has reached seven consecutive finals at this tournament winning six of those?

Anyhow, the draws have been released and it is surely going to be tricky to predict anything beforehand given the inconsistent form shown by the top players in the tune up events.

Federer’s Quarter

Nikolay Davydenko, Marcos Baghdatis, Thomas Berdych, Ernests Gulbis, Robin Soderling, Lleyton Hewitt…..what is common between these players? They used 2010 to snap their half-dozen or one-dozen long losing streaks against the Swiss Maestro, usually in three close sets (four close sets for Soderling). Who will be the next in line? Fernando Gonzalez? Phillip Kohlschreiber? James Blake on a hot day? I do not know.

What I do know is that no player of such potential features in Federer’s draw. He has already lost to Davydenko and Berdych—who are in his quarter—and he knows better than anyone on how not to lose consecutively to one single player, especially when their next potential meeting would be a best-of-five contest on grass.

Semifinalist: Roger Federer

Djokovic’s Quarter

If the tune up events to Wimbledon—Queen’s and Halle—were significant indicators of players’ performance at SW19, then this quarter is most definitely a loaded one, as it features a champion—Hewitt—and a runner up—Mardy Fish—in its lot of 32. However, it is Novak Djokovic and Roddick who are the favorites to reach the semis according to paper. Their path is anything but easy.

The Serb, in addition to his allergies to pollens (can they be found aplenty on grass?), may have to deal with the huge serve and volley player in Taylor Dent as early as the second round and Hewitt in the fourth who is high on confidence after a title on grass, a victory against the King of Grass, and an elevation in the seedings. Roddick himself might face tough encounters against Kohlschreiber (I got the spelling right for the second consecutive time!). Marin Cilic may not have shown good results on grass, but his nimble movement certainly bodes well for the green turf. Then there is the showman Gael Monfils who isn’t exactly James Bond on grass, but can always be expected to perform some of his theatrics on a tennis court regardless of the surface.

Wimbledon is really important for both the top seeds due to their erratic form this season, and it would be great if Roddick goes one up to his performance last year, but something tells me that he blew away his last chance to win Wimbledon in the second set tie-break last year.

Semifinalist: Marin Cilic

Murray’s Quarter

Soccer World Cup is going strong, and England did themselves no good by virtually hitting a self-goal in their match against USA. The event and its subsequent tragedy would be enough to garner away a lot of attention from the Britain’s biggest hope for a male Grand Slam champion since 1937. As much as Andy Murray likes the on court vociferous support for him, the off court pressure by the high expectations of the media and the countrymen hardly excites him. The World Cup coupled with his relative lack of success this year after his finals in Melbourne will do well for him to reduce the expectations. Look out for him to at least repeat his semifinals performance last year.

His draw is filled Verdasco, Tsonga, Almagro—all dangerous players on their day, but can they go deep enough to challenge him on grass? His toughest challenge will be from the champion at Queen’s—Sam Querry—but then Murray is a master of absorbing big servers with relatively weak ground strokes.

Semifinalist: Andy Murray

Nadal’s Quarter

The reigning French Open champion’s initial few words after winning his crown were two folds: he is really motivated for this year’s US Open, and that he will try to give his best performance at Wimbledon. From his part of the draw, it is evident that he will need to do the latter if he wishes to repeat his feat in 2008. From the promising Kei Nishikori in the first, to the hard hitting Blake in the second, Gulbis in the third, Isner (who took a set off him in Australia) in the fourth and the famous Soderling in the Quarters, Nadal’s line up is loaded with players who can go on a hot streak for long enough to upset his game, especially on a faster surface like this. His biggest assurance, though, will be that none of these players can move well on grass on which he feels very much at home.

The major cause of concern for Nadal is the lack of match practice he has had owing to the early exit at Queen’s and hence the strong list of early threats may prove fatal for the 2008 champion. He may still adapt himself in time to reach the semis, but there are enough big hitters in the draw to hand him the potential upset.

Semifinalist: Robin Soderling

Dark Horse: John Isner

Semi Finals: Federer d. Cilic, Soderling d. Murray

Finals: During the late nineties, Pete Sampras was no longer in his prime, but still used Wimbledon to shrug off his lackluster first half of the year. Roger Federer is reaching his thirties and the same can now be expected of him. Look out for him getting past his sweet sixteen on fourth of July.

Champion: Roger Federer

Rafael Nadal sinks into the Parisian clay after claiming his fifth Roland Garros title

As Rafael Nadal buried himself for the fifth time into the dirt of Philippe Chatrier that he so cherishes, absorbing every possible particle of clay that he could after his most emotional and important Grand Slam victory, I was left wondering as to what will be the biggest take away from the year’s second major. Will it be about Roger Federer’s streak finally being broken, or will Robin Soderling’s continued success story at the major be more worthy of discussion? Did Thomas Berdych and Jurgen Melzer did enough to make themselves notice, or Novak Djokovic’s quarter final exit after he blew a two sets lead did enough to garner more attention?

Grand Slams are about winners, though, and the biggest take away from the tournament should belong to Rafael Nadal who has come one step closer to equal Bjorn Borg’s record of six French Open titles. But it will not be about the first major he won in nearly one and a half years, or how he regained his world No. 1 ranking after having failed to win a title for nearly 11 months.

This tournament will be special to the King of Clay not only for the extra-curricular reasons, but also with regards to his development as a player. It feels that it took him the seventh major to finally attain maturity as a tennis player having the potential to win majors in double digits.

For most of the two weeks at Roland Garros, Nadal did not seem comfortable at this place. He played, to put it bluntly, a bad first round match against an unknown opponent, and he himself admitted of the nervousness coming into his first match. His second match was only a marginal improvement as he served better (OK, improvement in serve is tremendous progress—ask Djokovic, Ana Ivanovic or Dinana Safina) as he was still spraying errors from both wings.

As he reached past the quarter final stage, there were serious doubts about his reclaim of the title as he faced off a tough encounter in Nicholas Almagro and the only time he was a break up against his compatriot was in the final game when he broke Almagro’s serve.  Even though he called this the best match he had played so far, it was clear that his task would be cut out against his nemesis of 2009, Soderling, should he reach the finals. After all, Soderling had just upset Federer and he was much better than Almagro in every single aspect, be it the serve, ground strokes, consistency or mental toughness.

Even without dropping the set, one could never get a feeling that Rafael Nadal, the King of Clay, owned Roland Garros. He was just doing “enough” but would that enough be enough against a better and harder hitting opponent in the final? And this uncomfortable feeling was not about how he was plainly retrieving balls from the corners of the court compelling his opponent to hit one extra stroke and committing an error. No. This was always Nadal’s style ever since he bit the trophy for the first time since 2005. He looked puzzled even in his defense. In many matches, the unforced error count of Nadal was more than the number of winners he hit, something which was hardly associated with him till 2008. It seemed that hard, powerful, flat hitting strokes were finally an answer to the Nadal’s solid defense on clay.

All the doubts, however, were erased the moment he stepped into the court into the final. Nadal had gradually peaked his way into the tournament, and by the championship match of the tournament he was at his clay court best. Much has been said about Nadal’s defense and the way an opponent can be demoralized to see winners after winners being retrieved and returned perfectly back into the court, finally ending a misery through a backhand passing shot winner from Nadal on a perfectly good shot which normally would have been a winner against everyone else. And one cannot say enough about the way Nadal survived on Soderling’s cannon bombs forehands and backhands throughout the day. He won more than double the points won by Soderling once the rallies went over ten shots.

It was, however, Nadal’s offence that, even though overshadowed by his defense, stood out in the match. Serve has never been a strength of the Spaniard, and time-n-again he found himself in tricky positions of 15-30 or 30-40 or 15-40. And every time he came up with an ace or service winner to ease the pressure, or he would use his wide angled serve on Soderling’s backhand to set up a one-two punch. An overtly surprising statistic was displayed mid-way in the third set, when Nadal had won 40 points on rallies that lasted less than three strokes compared to Soderling’s 37. The final statistic also showed that Nadal matched the tournament’s highest ace hitter with seven aces each in the finals.

Yes, Nadal’s defense on clay can be broken under extreme circumstances. But what if it is combined with opportune aggression? Many thought that the match was a lot closer than the 6-4 6-2 6-4 score line suggested. I can argue that the match was a lot more one-sided what the scoreboard said. Part of the apprehension throughout the match—which made the score line tense—was Nadal’s questionable ability to hold his service games during the course of an entire set. But the way he served yesterday, there should have been none. He was 8-0 on the number of break points saved.

Rafa had shown his multi dimensional game in the finals, built primarily on defense but backed very efficiently by offense. But considering the tournament as a whole, Nadal added a new dimension to his playing skills. He worked his way into form by overcoming a couple of red-hot opponents while surviving on his patchy form, only to peak dominantly in the finals. In other words, he perfected the art of “Peaking at the Right Time.”

The King of Clay with the ultimate trophy for Clay Court Tennis

And this is what Rafa should take the most out of this tournament as it has set the course for him to win many more majors. Now he can grind “selectively” during the course of seven matches, reserving his best for the days when he needs it the most. For a player playing at his best is usually an infrequent occurrence.

Oh, and lest one forget. Making one’s hand heavier by wearing a $425,000 watch does not affect the way one plays. True, isn’t it?

Robin Soderling secured his first victory against Roger Federer in his thirteenth attempt

How often is the term “Giant Killer” used – rather misused – in today’s sporting world? And how often do we really see a Giant Killing act taking its true form in a sport? If we are to judge this act by Robin Soderling’s four set upset over Roger Federer in the Quarter Finals at the Roland Garros, then I can say that not many sporting acts come close to this feat.

Last year he handed Rafael Nadal his first ever loss at Roland Garros in five years. This year he became the first person apart from Nadal to beat Federer at Roland Garros in the last six years. And it was not only the gigantic names in tennis that he defeated. He was also responsible for stopping many gigantic feats in tennis that could have been engraved in the history books for the time to come. Nadal’s pursuit for a fifth straight French Open crown was halted – a feat never accomplished before. Federer’s march towards his 24th consecutive Grand Slam semis was halted, and by stopping this streak he has also created the possibility of stopping Federer’s record 287th week atop the rankings should Nadal manage to go all the way to win the title.

It is said that lightning does not strike the same place twice. But the lightning that was Robin Soderling struck twice in two years on two of the greatest players of modern tennis at the same place at Phillppe Chatrier. So how exactly did Soderling manage to repeat his feat against a player who has normally feasted on tennis players with big serves and heavy forehands?

It certainly did not look possible in the first set when Federer came out all guns blazing on his serve. The points were short, rallies were limited to five shots, and Soderling was clueless on the pace, direction and placement of the Federer’s serve which resulted in Swede winning a meager two points on the Swiss’s serve in the first set. Coupled with his own service woes, it was quick work for the defending champion as he wrapped up the first set in a little over 30 minutes showing the same inhuman form that had made him cruise through the semis and finals of the Australian Open earlier this year.

What this first set did hide, though, was the bigger picture for the match, which showed up the moment Soderling sorted out his issues with the serve – as he later said in the post match interview, he did not play a bad first set, just that he did not serve as well as he would have liked.

The conditions were heavy and damp due to the overcast conditions, which made the balls heavier through the air and slower through the court. Not only did this was in the Swede’s advantage as he got enough time to lock and load his massive forehand (which requires a good court position and big backswing to set up the speed), but it took away probably the biggest strength Federer had enjoyed on clay in the last two seasons – his second serve. I first noticed the high kicking second serve at the Madrid finals last year which did trouble Nadal immensely on that day, and since then it had been a major weapon for the Swiss Master who has faced a lot of trouble getting his first ball inside the service line in recent times. The dampness not only reduced the speed of the ball, but also negated the high bounce that Federer usually enjoys in better conditions. The second ball was landing right in the comfort zone of the tall 6’4” Swede and its inefficiency resulted in more pressure on Federer’s first serve.

These conditions, however, did not rob Soderling of any court speed whatsoever as he was belting first serves on the lines at 220+ kmph and bludgeoning forehands at more than 160 kmph. The raw power of the ground strokes had troubled Federer before in the finals of the US Open ’09 and it again led Federer to hit his ground strokes while being off balance, something not relished by the world No. 1 who relies on exquisite timing and relaxed footwork.

Having said that, Federer was still playing a very fine game – he landed 64 percent first serves in and hit a lot more winners than errors – and this upset would not have been possible merely with the change in conditions. After all, Federer had dispatched the same person in straight sets last year.

Soderling came into the match believing that he could win – something that was felt missing in his game last year when he played Federer – and relied on his instincts to produce a fearless display of absolutely brutal power tennis, probably never seen before. He took his chances by aiming for the lines

Robin Soderling and Roger Federer at the French Open

and never lost composure even in the most opportune moments, the most important one in securing a difficult service hold after failing to convert five break point opportunities late in the fourth set and the nerves of steel while serving for the match.

And it was this belief and fearless attitude that enabled him to take his position and unleash the massive heave of his forehand swing to generate possibly the most devastating forehands seen since Del Potro’s performace in the semis and finals of the US Open last year. If Federer’s game can provide artistic and soothing pleasure to he eyes, Soderling’s power tennis was its antithesis – it provided perverse pleasure which was no less exciting. And on this day, it worked magnificently against the defending champion.

The possibility of a Nadal – Soderling final promises to be the biggest blockbuster in tennis after a Federer – Nadal final in recent years. Should the Swede continue his fine form and the skies pour down some water before the final, he might very well go one step further from what he and his coach, Magnus Norman, achieved in 2009 and 2000 respectively and win the first Grand Slam for Sweden since Stefen Edberg in ’92. If, however, the sun comes out, Nadal will be counting his chickens for his fifth crown on dirt and seventh overall. They both have some distance to go before this happens, though, and the road does not look easy and both Thomas Berdych and Novak Djokovic have silently progressed through the draw, ready to produce yet another upset.

Things are nicely shaped up in the second week, thanks to Soderling. For the second year in a row, the man from Scandinavia has opened up the draw nicely with his giant killing act in an otherwise lackluster tournament.