On my weekly 'Monday Net Post' column at www.tennis.com, I mention my shining star of the week on both the men’s and women’s tours in my 'McGrogan's Heroes' section.  The obvious choice for this past week is of course the now three-time Roland Garros champion Rafael Nadal. Here is what I had to say about him:

“Rafael Nadal was cool and collected throughout the French Open final against Roger Federer, even during the second set that went to the Swiss. The slight case of nerves that reared itself when serving for the first set in his semi-final match against Novak Djokovic (on two occasions) never made their way to Court Philippe Chatrier on Sunday, as Nadal was in top form throughout the duration. In spite of his loss at Hamburg to Federer and the months of preparation leading up to this match by the world No.1, you never for one moment got the sense that Nadal had relinquished control of the match, or his grip as the undisputed king of clay.

Nadal's accolades on the dirt are some of the finest in tennis history - for the last three years, he's won Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, and Roland Garros; four of the most prestigious clay tournaments in the world. But as each year has progressed, he's improved his abilities on other surfaces. Non-believers and casual sports fans need only look to Wimbledon 2006 (finalist) and Indian Wells 2007 (champion) for proof - and this doesn't even consider his victories in the Montreal and Madrid Masters in 2005. With age on his side and Federer nearly five years his senior, the No.1 ranking for Nadal seems to be an inevitability.”

There are three things from this passage that I want to elaborate upon in further detail:

1. “In spite of his loss at Hamburg to Federer…”
Hindsight is clearly 20/20, but I think that two comments that were posted on my last entry are very accurate in retrospect. Both 'more axe' and 'kat' suggested that the Hamburg victory for Federer over Nadal needed to be regarded as a completely separate entity when assessing Roger’s chances of upending Rafa at Roland Garros. Some valid reasons that were mentioned included the best-of-three-sets limitation, the far slower clay, the fact that Federer has had much success at Hamburg, and that Nadal had played many more clay matches than Roger had up to that point. 


When you look at these facts, for lack of a better word, it’s obvious that the French Open is a 180-degree difference in terms of the type of match being played. In Sunday’s match, we saw that the Spaniard, and not the Swiss, adapted to these conditions much better.

But even discounting these factors, you have to give Nadal all the credit in the world for putting the Hamburg upset behind him. In the Federer camp, the Hamburg victory was often spoken of as something that could be carried over into the French Open. On Nadal’s side, that tournament was rarely mentioned. Just like in his matches, Nadal was completely focused on the match at hand, didn’t let doubt slip into his mind, and controlled the final as he did in 2006 (where he also dropped a set).


As for Federer, you seemed to get the feeling that the mental game was still not all there, which translated into missed shots, unforced errors and an inability to come through when it mattered most (going 0 for 10 on break points in the first set ring a bell?)

2. “…for the last three years, he's won Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, and Roland Garros…”
I had to mention this incredible statistic once more because Nadal accomplished what I previously dubbed  the 'quadruple trifecta'. What’s the only way to top this? Win four different events four years running. In fact, I already have the name for it – the 4x4.

Another interesting remark about Nadal’s amazing consistency on clay was mentioned by Federer during his post-match press conference:

Question: On which part of his game has he [Nadal] progressed most as compared to last year?
Federer: I don't think he has made any progress. I always feel if he was to change his game, he might stop being able to win on clay. So I think he needs to keep this game because with this specific type of game, he's just unbeatable on clay. I've defeated him once, not at the most important moment, but in Hamburg.

And that sort of leads into my next point –

3. “With age on his side and Federer nearly five years his senior, the No.1 ranking for Nadal seems to be an inevitability.”
Yes, I do believe this, Federer fan or not. Nadal at the moment doesn’t have to change his game to be successful on other surfaces, and to win Grand Slams on them. He’s won premier events on hard courts, and has come as close to winning Wimbledon as Federer has been to winning Roland Garros. I do think that Nadal is closing the gap on Federer.

I don’t believe this just because Nadal is invincible at the French Open – I believe it because Nadal is one of the best tennis players I have ever seen. His speed and fire are unmatched on tour, and like Federer, he has every shot in the book at his disposal. I’m not sure if it will be this year, next year, or five years from now, but I firmly believe that Nadal will someday climb the mountain and will be the one to end Federer’s streak of weeks as the world’s No.1. Being that Federer ended Nadal’s 81-match clay-winning streak, I’m sure it would be fitting payback in the eyes of the Mallorcan.

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