Roland Garros ATP Epilogue

-- Unashamed Ode to Rafa: The defining moment of the event (and for me the most sobering) is Rafa being downed by Yoker-in-Residence Robin Soderling. Not at match point (though that was pretty traumatic in it's own way), but when he stumbled after losing his footing chasing down one of Robins big swinging forehands that stretched him out wide. A growing sense of unease I'd felt within me since the beginning of the match came to a head with the greatest indication yet, that the battle was lost.

Downed.
(Photo: AP)

Time stood still. I felt physically sick. It was like seeing a much loved Champ hit the canvas after being sent reeling with a right hook to the jaw. In slow-mo of course. With the usual mix of blood and sweat being spattered everywhere. And with all the 'King is Dead' subtexts that implies. Very Raging Bull.



Someone please put together a montage with that soundtrack, of Rafa's worst moments from the match culminating in that knockdown. I know I'd shed a tear. I very nearly did.

-- I didn't describe Robin's forehand as unsightly in that last paragraph. I apologise. It moved me so. Normal service will now be resumed.

-- Having said all of that, Rafa going out early this year was a good thing for the event. There, I said it.

-- That's said not as a Fed fan (I'm as much a fan of Rafa's as I am of Federer's) but as self-appointed Chairman of the Society for the Appreciation of Big-Upset Tennis. Like it or not, such a high profile loss injects a unique sense of drama into proceedings. Drama that makes further eye-popping things happen, drama that stirs the soul. Drama that makes Tommy Robredo do funny things with his tongue and prance around like a baboon in heat.

-- Tommy Robredo 'going ape' on us after putting an end to Kohlschreiber's fine run here gave us our best victory celebration of the event and a poignant reminder of how warped it all was.

-- And while we're on the topic - Tommy Robredo - last Spanish man standing - who'd have thunk it? Monteras off to you sir. I was wrong. You da man. And apparently da primate too.

-- I'm not a fan of the way Rafa was treated by the crowd. There was something a little unsettling about their fickleness. Something distinctly Ancient Romanic about the bloodthirsty way in which they were all too eager, seeing him on the ropes, to turn against a four time champion and the undisputed GC-COAT. Reason #7438 of why I'm not a fan. Look out for the voluminous book.

-- 'Unexpectedly found' in translation: Toni Nadal's take on the way his nephew was treated by the Parisian crowd is understandable but slightly OTT.

On the other hand "Wanting someone to lose is a slightly conceited way of amusing yourself" is one of the best tennis related quotes I've read in years. I'd be interested to know whether the original quote in Spanish is as good. Kind of 'lost in translation' but in reverse?

In any event it could only be bettered by saying something like, "Wanting someone to lose seems to demonstrate an abominable sort of conceited independence, a most Parisian indifference to decorum...". But that would be too good to be true.

-- Novak's early loss here was partly due to the amount of tennis he played in the clay court season. A schedule that included that newly created event in Belgrade his family owns. Way-too-much-Tennis-initis. An ailment he now shares with his countrywoman Jelena.

-- Speaking of Novak taking part in that family-run event, is it just me, or are the words 'conflict of interest' leaping out at anyone else? It may not matter, I'm hoping his appearance at the event's first outing was largely promotional. Hope Novak learns the lessons Jelena didn't.

-- Juan del Potro is a better clay court player than Andy Murray. Though I'm not at all sure about those 'big five' pretensions. He still has to win a Masters Title, and has only had two wins over top 4 players (Nadal and Murray). He'd need to put that right as well as turning around the abysmal record he has against Federer, to secure my big-five vote. Though he took a hefty stride in the right direction this week. And if he puts in a good grass-court showing, that'd mean his coarse, heavy handed ball striking -- unappealing and uneasy as it is on the eye -- is effective on all surfaces. Be stupid to try and argue with that.

-- Andy Murray has been fighting a rather separate battle with the British Media trying to convince them that the way he plays tennis is all a rather cunning experiment in stylistic adaptation. Apologies for those that have heard it all before, but the theory goes like this: he attacks grinders that hang back and hit a lot of topspin, and tortures the flatter, more aggressive hitters with those loopy defensive shots of his own.

Whatever it is it's strangely effective. Most players appear flummoxed by the fact that they can't subdue such an 'understated' style of play. It helped him to creep through the draw in the most under-the-radar way imaginable (Which with everything happening around him, wasn't actually that hard). Right up until he ran into Gonzo. And got bagelled. Further adaptations required.

History, Destiny and other Hoofed Creatures...

And now some words from a very special guest...


My thanks to TopSpin, 2Hander and the rest of the team here at 'Tennis is Served...' for allowing me to address you all on this very special moment of Tennis History...

He did it. 14 Slams, including that elusive rust coloured one they said he couldn't win.

And he did it with the single handed backhand a stroke that according to them, was a thing of the past.

[Rapturous Applause]

Even as my kind prepares to welcome Roger into our ranks this week, I think it fair to tell you that I almost don't care about that four letter word as, like a lot of other people, I don't think it actually means all that much. It also has some rather unpleasant Satanic undertones, which my kind tend not to like very much.

[Murmurs of consternation]

I take more pleasure in knowing that in this age of larger-framed racquets, muscular physiques and double-handed backhands, two of the most stylish and skilled players of this generation fought their way through and subdued a field largely comprised of power-baseliners.

['Amen to that!']

However, in the interests of completeness, and seeing as everybody from Sampras through to the bloke at the bus stand seems to have an opinion on the subject, here's where I stand on the whole four-legged, naturally-homogenised milk giving issue.

Let me me start with a question.

If Federer got through to the final playing a better standard of tennis than he played over the entire two weeks in Paris - playing as well as he was say in the 2006-2007 seasons - and then lost to Nadal in another one of those uncompetitive four sets of tennis, would that make him any less of a player than he is now?

(Photo: AP)

Not in my book. For what it's worth , were I to accept the validity of such a title, I'd argue he's already earnt it on the strength of those four consecutive French Open finals he contested against the GC-COAT. If he surpassed Sampras' 14 Slams without winning the FO, he'd still deserve it.

Now here's the rub.

Like it or not, I don't think you can ignore that he didn't face not just Nadal, but Djokovic and Murray too. The other best three players in the world, all of whom seem to have his number right now.

[Indecisive murmurs]

And those are the two extremes within which I rather uneasily reside. I think one more Slam (on any surface - we already know he can play on clay) where he subdues at least one other of the top four, would seal it for me. Were I to believe in such things.

Though this is a Slam win just like any other, and he can of course only play the 'ugly forehand' that's put in front of him, this just ain't the same as the US Open last year, where coming off a run of poor form, he dispatched both Djoko and Murray back to back, playing a less stellar and more pragmatic brand of tennis. His best win yet IMO.

[Amen]

On the other hand those that would rather confer the title on Sampras (and they aren't all Fed Haters), or relentlessly grind the 'weak era' argument (that on balance I don't buy very much even though I believe Sampras would have done just as well as Federer in this era) would do well to reflect on Sampras's less polished RG record, where he only once made the semis going out to Kefelnikov in a manner not dissimilar to Rafa's brutal dismantling of Roger last year.

Roger's made the final four years in a row. Even that semi final outage in 2005 was against, you've guessed it, Rafael Nadal. That, I'm afraid, most likely means he would have added further rust-coloured Titles to that incredible tally of 14 Slams had he not lived in the same era as the GC-COAT.

['YES he would!']

A problem, I might add, that Pete Sampras didn't have to face. I wonder how his single hander would have fared against the Pink Pounder.

And it is just Sampras and Federer in question here.

Laver? Meh. That's probably spectacularly unfair given the record of two 'Grand' Slams, and a #1 ranking for seven consecutive years. But still. Meh. Different era, different equipment, different standards of fitness and different motivations, drive and intensity. Different sport altogether. I suppose you should say he was the best player with a wooden racquet and leave it at that.

[Angry chorus of disapproval from one corner of the room leading to a group of loyal Laver supporters being expelled]

And there I'm going to leave the whole topic. Except to say that having lived through both the Sampras and Federer eras I find myself ever so slightly in the Swiss camp. A camp I've been in ever since I saw a potato-nosed, pony-tailed bumpkin of a teenager take out Sampras in his last competitive showing at SW19, following that up two years later with his first Wimbledon Title after which we saw those tears flow in a way which is now all too familiar.

(Photo: PATRICK KOVARIK/AFP/Getty Images)

I still think Pete Sampras had the best-serve-of-all-time; I might well say I'm beSOATed with that service action. Rather how I feel about most every other stroke Federer conjures up - but there's not much in it. I think I may even prefer Pete's volleys too.

And that rather subjective point of view is the best I'm afraid I can offer up. I don't think it's possible to resolve the 'best ever' question without reference to some absurd unquantifiable set of criteria that usually only exists in our own heads. Usually countered with reference to other seemingly irrefutable but equally unquantifiable sets of criteria.

But seeing as most everyone now, from Agassi to Roddick to Tim Henman to Neil Harman, right through to Sampras himself, is jumping on the 'Capra aegagrus hircus' bandwagon - and seeing as I'm not exactly far removed from that particular genus myself - I will for my part concede, that this is the best claim I've seen laid down yet.

I will in parting mention two other great men, that despite their differences, contributed into making this tournament the amazing, other-wordly, mind-bending experience it was.

Robin, you came into this event a misunderstood and somewhat 'fringe' figure - but not only have you made this your best ever showing at this level, you've won your way into our hearts with the best runners-up speech we've had in recent years.

[Applause]

And I'm not 'yoking' when I say that though we've said some pretty harsh things about the way you hit your forehand, I wouldn't want you to change anything about it. Not for the world. Well ok, maybe for the world. And a couple of Slam Titles. Welcome back into the fold...

[Further Applause]

Rafa, though you're hurting right now, I think everyone knows you're still the GC-COAT, and will likely pick up from where you left off next year. And I'm sure you won't mind my saying that your departure opened up the draw in a way we've never really seen since the parting of the Red Sea. Take some consolation if you can, from knowing that your beloved title here couldn't have gone to a better rival. Get thee knee better - and I hope to see you at Wimbledon!

[Rapturous applause and whistling only broken up with the sound of a fiddler starting up a jig.....]

'Two'-Slam-Wonder...

Today was always going to be a tricky one for me.

It was on the face of it a win-win situation: My #1 pick for the event, with her best chance yet of ridding herself of that 'real #1" baggage. Versus a lady I've made no efforts to conceal my admiration for since the inception of this blog, the most naturally gifted player IMO since the departure of Henin, who'd been in what I now hope will be the last trough of her tennis career since winning her first Slam at the US Open in 2004.

"What do you mean you want this thing back already!?"
(Photo: Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

Unfortunately this could also be viewed as a lose-lose situation - for either of these two to go out would have been heartbreaking, and as pleased as I am that Sveta has finally got the 'one-Slam-wonder' monkey off her back, my heart tonight goes out to Dinara Safina.

She's got no one but herself to blame of course, but to come unstuck in three Slam finals (two of which she had a good chance of winning) within the space of 12 months must make her feel very low indeed.

She looked a little shaky from the outset, but didn't make that bad a start - just not as smooth and controlled as Sveta. Her serve however really let her down today, and her game began to unravel rapidly from early on in the second set, in a way from which she never really recovered.

The most painful image of the final has got to be the sight of Dinara staring desperately towards Zeljko, her eyes almost imploring him to tell her what to do. But props are due to Zeljko, ever the consummate professional, doing nothing more than nodding his head in support - how many coaches would be out of their seats, issuing those dodgy hand signals to their charge in their moment of crisis?

(Photo: LIONEL BONAVENTURE/AFP/Getty Images)

Can we now all agree what a BIG mistake on court coaching has been, and consign it to that intergalactic trashcan found in the same pocket of the multiverse that Roger Federer lost that five setter to Tommy Haas in?

As Justine Henin once said (who never once used the facility even though it was available to her), if you can't use the facility at the Slams, then what's the point of getting used to it outside of them?

Hope Dinara's not too downcast. She might remember that she didn't stumble upon the world #1 ranking by accident. Arguments about her style of play and 'quantity over quality' are largely redundant, as they may be applied to this comparatively weak generation as a whole: she's at least as deserving of a Slam as Ivanovic was.

She may not be more talented than her opponent on the other side of the net today, but it's surely only a matter of time, is it not, before she bags one of these things herself?

And in Zeljko she seems to have found the perfect partnership to make that dream a reality. For tonight, dust yourself off and go find Marat. Shoot some pool or watch some feel-good movies with him. I think he's still in town.

But major props, hearty congrats and a specially animated mention must go to Sveta. The final itself was insignificant. The greater victory comes in the journey she's taken to get to this point. I knew that kick serve and effortless shotmaking were too good to waste away!

Some say the first Slam came too quickly for her - the woman that came through on Chatrier today was a different person to that immature, braced teenager that stormed to victory five years ago.

And the maturity showed, in the calm, controlled way in which she went about the match , the way she didn't wildly celebrate when Safina served that ghastly double fault at Championship point (didn't even smile in fact) , through to the understated and dignified way she delivered her victory speech, demonstrating to me that she may finally be coming to terms with her own worth.

She'll still have her wobbles of course. I daresay she wouldn't be Sveta if she didn't. I just hope they now come in the form of the odd set dropped here and there (she played her share of three setters here), rather than those inexplicable lapses that caused her to mentally check out of entire matches in the past.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

History Beckons (and demands rather a lot)...

Much as I like Gonzo, there were two very strong reasons I was backing Soderling to come through the first semi.

-- Gonzo has been to a Slam final and come unstuck against Federer before. Yes I know he was tired out in 2007, and that Federer was on specially stellar form during that period, but it's not just me that doesn't generally rate Gonzo's chances very highly against Federer - his game seems to match up too well. Given the gravity of what may be achieved at this event, we needed someone in the final that would really make Roger earn his way into the history books.

"Soderling's been playing out of his skin..."

-- Federer fans may dislike it, but if Roger wins here on Sunday, history will always remember this as being the event where Rafa went out to a guy he doesn't like very much. A guy who'd never been beyond the third round of a Slam, playing out of his skin.

And that, I'm afraid means asterisks against the name of any eventual winner, history books or no history books.

If I had it my way, Federer would have to go through Nadal to win the only Slam that eludes him. Preferably over five brutal sets in a final lasting five hours.

But sport, and life in general, has a funny habit of disappointing us like that. If I can't have a Rafa-Roger final, I want to see nothing less than Roger Federer taking on Rafa's conqueror in a best of five set match with both men playing at the peak of their powers. History demands it because history's on the line.

And a hard earnt win might just cause the GOAT cynics to make a little less of that asterisk.

It doesn't disappear of course, especially if Robin comes out on Sunday and plays a complete stinker. But I've no reason to suppose that that will happen.

Dude's played out of so many layers of skin, he may enter Chatrier on Sunday looking like a sinewy mass of skeletal muscle, usually found on the last two pages of your high school textbook on Human Biology.

***

Special mention to Del Potro who's gone from being a player I didn't like very much to being one of the shining stars of this event IMO. I've found my dislike for his style of play gradually receding ever since the clay court season began actually, with the way he took to the surface which isn't after all one he's at all comfortable on (Yes not all South Americans are born "gifted and able" on the red stuff).

You can sometimes forget that the guy has only recently turned 20, and although he strolls around very slowly between points, his concentration and focus are a class above the Andy Murray of a couple of years ago.

And today he showed us the extent of his mental development with the way he took Federer to five sets - a considerable achievement given that he'd yet to bag a set in either of their previous five meetings (The double bagel Roger inflicted on him at Melbourne this year will likely remain forever inscribed on his soul). It would have been so easy and so predictable, given that record, to roll over the way Monfils did a round earlier. The serving in particular was something special, and stands him in good stead in the upcoming grass court season.

Ladies Semi Finals and a Word on Robin...

Ok I realise Rafaelites (and most tennis fans in general it seems) won't like this, but we might soon be seeing the departure of the big swinging Swede, and I think it's time to tip my hat a little at the man responsible for giving us what's likely to remain the biggest story of this event.

Especially considering how disparaging I've been towards his forehand, a stroke which I'm unlikely to revise my opinion of. Ever.

Not that he or anyone else should care of course. It's unsightliness serves almost as a forewarning of the devastation it's capable of inflicting. Whoever said that brutality wouldn't be a necessary ingredient to bringing about the biggest upset in clay court history? And besides, it gives us a different take on 'Winning Ugly'.

"We should shoot pool or something..."

I have no idea how tomorrow's match versus Gonzalez will turn out, but if it is to be Robin's last appearance here, he can go out knowing he's pulled off what in my eyes is a greater achievement than the way Nadal unseated Federer at Wimbledon last year.

(There was always a sense that Nadal was inching ever closer towards doing that having made the final there for the previous two years, but Rafa at RG was about the safest bet in sport).

Nadal's always been vulnerable to flat hitters, but like many others, I thought he had exorcised that particular demon in the way he'd turned around his record against James Blake and MikailYouzhny.

I'm not sure what lies next for Robin. It's probably a safer bet to assume he won't follow up on this form in the immediate future. But I will say this: hitting the ball as flat and as accurately and aggressively as he does off both wings won't just cause Nadal problems.

There's probably less than a handful of players that can do that.

If you can do it for any extended period of time -- à la Safin v Federer Melbourne'05 -- it almost doesn't matter who's on the other side of the net. That just may be the other safest bet in tennis.

***

We did have some ladies semi finals action today.

Dinara came through in straights against Cibulkova in a match that deserved a third set given how intensely fought it was. I'm pretty sure I've never seen Dinara get more Marat on us. I counted two expletives ("Move your f****g feet!") amidst the usual gloriously toned episodes of Russian self berating.

It clearly matters to her.

But it didn't stop there. Dinara was in full flow today.

And Russian Drama preceded Deadpan Humour. And Irony. Look out for her 'That was a good shot', after a serve that went so horribly wrong, it hit her side of the court before ending up in the net.

I love having mics so close to players. Best media innovation ever.

I've always been a sucker for underdogs and Dominika, with the way she contests each and every point and the punch that she packs, makes the job of liking her all the more easier.

And the sight of all 5 foot 2 inches of her doing battle with the big girls, meant I was the closest I've been yet to backing one of Dinara's opponents.

She's surely one of the most consistent players on tour, but that usually indicates a distinct lack of aggression (think Jelena). No so here - if anything it looks like she's taking aim for the lines.

Yes, ultimately her lack of height does prove to be a problem where she's unable to direct anything she's forced to hit above her shoulders; but I actually think shorter players like her have a unique advantage against the taller women.

Cast your mind back to the match Ivanovic played against Jie Zheng at Wimbledon last year. For Ana, it was the onset of that great journey named 'all at sea' tennis players take once in a while. There's been reports of her vessel approaching the misty French harbours this week, but her return date remains uncertain.

Anyway, one of the things she said after the loss was how difficult she found it to reach those low bouncing balls that were practically skidding past her - the bounce no doubt made worse by the grass, but also largely down to the stature and technique of her opponent.

No need for a maths lecture here, but most short players compensate for their lack of height by hitting with bucket loads of topspin. Now consider the trajectory of a flat stroke and compare one struck by a taller player to that struck by a shorter player.

Because the taller player's shot will be begin it's journey from a slightly higher position, the corresponding bounce will also be higher. Yes, it's easier for them to execute a flatter stroke because of the height advantage, but their ball will also sit up a little more.

Conversely, a flat shot will be a lot harder to execute for a shorter player - they run the obvious risk of over shooting. But if they do manage to land the ball in, it will be that much more difficult to return as it will likely remain pretty low. That's what Ivanovic was up against rally after rally. Not surprised she emerged as flustered as she was.

It takes a pretty talented player to pull that off. But I think Jie Zheng and Dominika Cibulkova, ranked 19 and 15 in the world respectively, fit that bill perfectly.

The other semi involved Sveta and Sam Stosur - a woman that has made #1 in the world in the Doubles Rankings. I was looking forward to this one as it involved two very unique talents.

Two of the only female players capable of serving a kicker.

I feel about kicked serves the same way I do about single handed backhands. A uniquely effective but somewhat lost art, particularly on the womens tour.

I also loved the inspirational story of the big return from Lymes Disease, that sat rather well, I thought, alongside the first Aussie showing at a Grand Slam Semi in 21 years.

There was a lot resting on this one for me.

Unfortunately it failed to live up to it's billing.

Stosur was sadly missing in action, until late in the second set when a sudden surge from her secured the tie break. Sveta's form coughed and spluttered the way it usually does, periods of sheer brilliance punctuated with brain dead nonsense (Remind me again why I'm a fan? Something to do with effortless shotmaking).

Things picked up in the last set though, and featured rallies of the highest quality from both women. Rallies that convinced me that Stosur, despite it being an off day for her, is capable of pushing her ranking higher than her current position at #32.

She really does play her tennis a little differently. The serve is not the heaviest I've seen, but quite brilliant in it's placement and variation. And of course there's that kicker - not put to best use today it must be said. But what really stood out for me -- because I wasn't prepared for it like I was with the kicker -- was the forehand.

Eurosport had a great slow-mo camera profiling the best groundstrokes of both players and I couldn't help noticing how Federer-like her action is.

I'd love to see her playing at the peak of her powers - she said in an interview she was cutting back the doubles to focus on singles and 'making her mark' there. Maybe this Slam is the first of many that sees her do just that.

But I can't help feeling that with the way Sveta fudged and slurred her way through this match, and with the way Dinara mocked and caricatured her way through hers, it's Dinara that's demonstrating the greater determination.

Sveta has bags more talent but it seems to be Dinara's time.

Now That The Dust Has Settled...

Well it seems I needn't have worried...

La Monf's date with Mr Destiny wasn't nearly as competitive or as intensely fought as I expected. A surprisingly unextravagant well ordered affair.

Where were those primaeval screams, that fevered whipping up of the crowd, those rallies he plays like he's dodging bullets?

Yes order was restored to RG today, and after the multi-dimensional topsy-turviness we've had, I'm not ashamed of admitting I'm finding it a little tough to swallow - a bit like watching a daytime chatshow after the Director's Cut of Fight Club.

The only match that came close to firing me up was the Serena-Sveta quarter final, one in which Sveta -- after some of her usual jitteriness -- came through by doing what many of us loyal fans have been wanting to see for years: daring to use her natural shotmaking ability at the moments where it matters most.

So there it is. Mr Destiny still has a date with Destiny. Del Potro's through to his first semi. And The Unsightly Forehand takes on The Forehand.

No Serena Slam. No Masha Career Slam. Instead accompanying Marat's little sister, we have a gutsier version of Sveta. An Aussie doubles specialist that can kick her serve. And a feisty Slovakian that can clearly punch beyond her weight (and height).

So not that ordered after all...

Should You Return Like Nadal?

Watch Rafael Nadal as he returns serve, especially on clay.

What you'll see is that Nadal stands way back to return and then hits a high, looping, heavy topspin, return off both the forehand and backhand.

Nadal is basically saying that he is so confident in his ability to chase down a second shot, that he is choosing to give himself as much time as possible to rip a heavy return.

Many other players stand in tighter and return with an abbreviated stroke, using the pace of the serve.

On clay, I think it's definitely worthwhile to try Nadal's strategy aspecially if you have heavy groundstrokes which can do some damage if you take a full swing.

Nadal also returns very high over the net which dramatically increases his percentage of returns in play. Again, this makes him theoretically vulnerable to serve and volleyers, but considering that there are no good serve and volleyers on tour, it's seems to be a pretty fair bet.

We'll analyze further aspects of Nadal's game in the next few posts but, as you watch him play his matches, start to watch his shot selection and how he almost always goes for high percentage shots.

Until next time,

Glenn Sheiner M.D. - author of Insider Tennis Strategies How To Return Smart Like Rafael Nadal guaranteed to make you a smarter tennis player and take your tennis to the next level. Also, check out the world's top tennis humor screensaver
Tennis Cartoon Screensaver. You can download a trial version for FREE.