They say that first impressions are important. After watching countless hours of tennis over the past few years, I’ve realised you can tell a lot about how a match is going to progress, just by how the opening games play out.

During the first game of Sunday’s Rome final between Fernando Gonzalez and Rafael Nadal, I thought I might have seen a chink in the armour in the mercurial Spaniard. For one, Nadal looked fatigued, most likely due to his marathon semi-final on Saturday with Nikolay Davydenko. No matter how much Nadal plays, he never seems to be winded during his next match, but I sensed that something was different this time.

Another thing I noticed was that early on, Nadal was committing errors that were quite uncharacteristic of his game. Usually, Rafa comes out guns blazing, and doesn’t need much time at all in order to “get into” the match.

Because of these observations, I wondered if my earlier prediction of a straight-sets Nadal victory was doomed. This danced in my mind because I fully expected Gonzalez, who had far more rest coming into the match, and who was under little pressure to begin with due to Nadal’s admitted clay supremacy, to feed off these exposed openings.

What happened was far different from what I had anticipated. Gonzalez, who was serving and 40-15 up, soon became the player making the unforced errors. With a chance to close out the game on a few occasions, and most importantly, set the tone of the match early in his favour, the Chilean was unable to take advantage, and was quickly broken.

The second game was very much like the first. Nadal, who was serving, still didn’t look like himself on court, and I felt that if Gonzalez could apply some pressure on Nadal, he could give him a stern test. But just like the preceding game, Gonzalez’s blade was even duller than Nadal’s. The Chilean wasn’t sharp at all, and this trend would continue throughout the day.

The problem for Gonzalez was not only his unforced errors, which were plentiful, but also the fact that Nadal’s game improved from the second game onward. Rafa wasn’t automatic by any means, but his shots were more consistent, and he had soon grabbed the first set by a 6-2 score. Gonzalez was down on the dirt, literally and figuratively, as he tried in vain to return a Nadal ground stroke on set point.

In the second set, the poor play of Gonzalez continued, falling down a double break (0-3) in relatively quick fashion. Indecisive and tentative, Fernando never once grasped the confidence that would be necessary to defeat Nadal on this day. Another thing that Gonzalez rarely grasped was the slice backhand; his shot of choice that I discussed yesterday. The shot was rarely employed, and when it was, it didn’t trouble Nadal in the least. Clockwork combinations didn’t lead to the Gonzalez forehands, as they have in his previous matches in Rome, but instead, his forehands were more erratic, and less effective.

Just like the opening set, a 6-2 score was the end result of set two, and the title was Nadal’s for the third straight year. Looking back, my first impressions of this match were accurate – Gonzalez’s inability to assert himself in this match remained constant from start to finish. Still, if you asked me how I thought the match would play out while watching the opening points, I never would have considered a 6-2, 6-2 domination.

Looking ahead, does Nadal play Hamburg? I know it’s on his schedule, and he’d probably like to play in it, but is it in his best interest? This should be answered pretty shortly, and either way, it will be an interesting decision. I agree with “papo”, a TennisWorld message board poster, who suggested that, “while I do think he should skip Hamburg, wouldn't it be amazing if he played and ended up sweeping the whole clay-court season?”

One person who is playing in Hamburg is Roger Federer. Now Tony Roche-less, Roger will try to pick up some steam heading into Roland Garros by winning a tournament where he was the champion in 2002, 2004, and 2005. Federer would clearly love to win this title for many reasons – but one question is, would Nadal like to prevent him from doing so?

Also discussed on the above message board was the fact that the separation between Federer and Nadal for the No.1 ranking is much closer than it appears. The main reason is because, aside from Roland Garros and Wimbledon (no slouch tournaments, of course), Nadal has already defended his points from Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome, and gained important points from his performances in Indian Wells and Miami.


The rest of the year could be gravy for Nadal, because he didn’t earn as many point during the last few months of 2006 (you remember that “slump” – which I think was laughable to suggest – that he had, right?). On the other hand, Roger’s wealth of points accumulated last year are all events still to be contested. Grass tournaments, and nearly every hard-court event aside from Cincinnati were Federer’s last year, and to avoid losing ground, he’ll have to perform up to that lofty standard.

Heading into Roland Garros, we’re seeing a much different tennis environment than we did last year. In 2006, Federer severely tested Nadal at Monte Carlo and Rome, and took care of business on all other events prior to the clay season. This year, it’s Nadal who has all of the momentum, due to his achievement, and Federer’s recent struggles. For Federer fans, I’ll say this – a Roland Garros victory would be that much sweeter this time around.

Suppose this, though. Let’s say Nadal wins the French, and ultimately overtakes Federer as the world No.1. Maybe Sports Illustrated will finally give the Sportsman of the Year award to a tennis player – just not the one we originally thought.

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

Can Nadal takes over from Federer as world No.1? Leave a comment below or write an article if you prefer.