David, in the form of Guillermo Canas, couldn’t slay another giant this time – Rafael Nadal won in Barcelona, in rather simple fashion by a 6-3, 6-4 score.

Canas did what he could, but Nadal’s constant aggressiveness was too much for the Argentinian’s sublime defensive abilities. (Maybe this is something that Roger Federer should have taken a page from when he played Canas.)

In addition, despite Guillermo employing some fine offensive tactics of his own, Rafa simply outclassed him in terms of the number and quality of shots.

It was business as usual for Nadal, but the Spaniard has taken this phrase to an entirely new level. He’s now won Monte Carlo and Barcelona three consecutive years, and he’s the unquestionable favourite to do the same in Rome and at Roland Garros, where he’s also the two-time defending champion.

To be the champion of these four separate tournaments, each three years running, would be one of the most impressive accomplishments I’ve ever seen in tennis. Add in the fact that these four events are within a two-month stretch – so there’s no room for extended rest and practice – and you should get a sense of how much focus and pristine play is required to achieve this feat.

I’m not conceding Rome and the French to Nadal just yet, but there is an important difference between Rafa’s stranglehold on clay and Federer’s stranglehold on hard courts. Federer, in spite of dominating Indian Wells, Miami and the US Open for years, has had to contend with opponents who have proved that they can win on the hard stuff.

Names like Andy Roddick, Marat Safin come to mind, despite the fact that their record against Federer is poor. You could also throw Andy Murray, Canas, and even Nadal (Dubai ’06) into the discussion as well, being that they’ve beaten Roger on hard courts, albeit rarely.

Nadal, however, hasn’t had anyone beat him, and adding to that, the scores haven’t even been close of late. He hasn’t dropped a set this year on clay, and didn’t even require a tie-breaker in the process. Federer’s grip on hard courts is still undeniable, even with his two recent losses to Canas. However, the players besides Roger are closer to him in terms of abilities on a hard surface, as opposed to Nadal, whose clay rivals are miles away from him. No one has beaten Rafa on clay since Igor Andreev in 2005 (in Valencia), but Roger has lost on a few occasions since that on hard courts.

There’s no way I would ever diminish Federer’s accolades on hard courts – in fact, that ‘season’ is longer than the clay-court season (since hard courts are used at the beginning and end of the calendar year). So you have to factor that into the equation as well. However, I do feel that Nadal has an even greater grasp of his surface, and the ‘quadruple trifecta’ is a very strong possibility.

I don’t see either the Rome or Roland Garros titles in jeopardy for Nadal, and should a Canas-like upset occur to Rafa in the meantime, I think it would be an even greater shock than what was felt at Indian Wells this year.


Nadal or Federer - which player do you rate better on his own specialist surface? Let Sportingo have your views.

*** For more tennis coverage, go to www.gasquetandracquet.com ***