The Many Faces of Roland Garros

I know there are a ton of problems with the Roland Garros site. I know it is tiny and squished and hard to get to and rubbish when it rains. And I know all this despite never having even been to France. So is it bad that I am super glad that the French Open is staying there?

Maybe I just sort of like tradition. The French Open has been at Roland Garros since the 1920s, after all, and that's a long time. Maybe I just couldn't adjust to calling the French Open Marne-la-vallee or Gonesse or Versailles - it's been Roland Garros for so long. I know that other Slams have survived moves before - Forest Hills and Kooyong are much quieter these days - but I feel oddly relieved that the French Open is going nowhere. Roland Garros is going to stay Roland Garros.

Not that the tournament would have moved for a few years anyway - the current arrangement expires in 2015. So I guess what we're going to see in the next few years will be a little like what we saw at Wimbledon when it was being renovated - a changing tournament, an evolving tournament. The many faces of Roland Garros. By the time 2016 rolls around, Roland Garros will be very different indeed.

They are putting a roof on Court Philippe Chatrier, to which I say THANK GOD, why didn't you do it before? Seriously, the roof is the best thing ever to happen to tennis stadiums EVER. And it guarantees good weather. You get a roof, I promise you'll hardly ever have to use it. Just ask Wimbledon. There's going to be no roof for Court Suzanne Lenglen, though, which seems silly. Surely there's some kind of 2-for-1 deal out there that they can take advantage of...?

The site is going to expand, bringing it up to 13 hectares - though if the locals have something to say about it, this won't happen, because it's taking over some of the nearby botanical gardens. So let's see how that one goes. There's supposed to be a new court built inside the gardens with 5,000 seats, but it sounds a little bit controversial, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the first thing to go if any kind of bargaining goes on.

Though the French Open desperately needs a new show court. Like WHOA.

The one change that really does make me sad is the fact that the bullring court (Court #1) is going to be knocked down. I've watched a few matches on that court (televised, obviously, not actually!) and I really like the atmosphere. But I suppose we have to make some sacrifices. Wimbledon lost Court #2, Graveyard of Champions, and it still seems to be going strong. Stuff has to change. This is life.

But at least the whole site didn't change. Roland Garros is still going to be at Roland Garros, and I'm pretty happy about that.

Too Good For His Own Good?

I am seeing a conundrum looming for Rafael Nadal.

*

He is too good for his own good.

*

He's just won three tournaments in three weeks. Even in the heyday of the golden years of the Federer empire, this wasn't exactly normal. And though he's got a week off now, he's got another one coming up. Which he'll probably win. And then the French Open, where you would feel safe betting your house on him playing seven matches.

*

So, if you were Rafa Nadal, what would you do? In 2007 we saw him win three tournaments (these same three) and then get beaten in the final of Hamburg (by Roger Federer, but still) because he was just so damn exhausted. We know he is capable of fighting through a LOT of exhaustion - hello, backing up the Aussie Open semi against Verdasco with the final against Federer - but how much can any man take?

*

Though Rafa is, of course, a machine.

*

I think a lot of players in his position would skip Madrid - but it's in Spain, his homeland, and also it's right up close to the French Open, making it a good lead up tournament. Would Rafa come into the French Open cold if he just said, 'okay, I've proved my excellence on clay now, I don't need to play Madrid - let someone else have one of the damn Masters trophies'?

*

Probably not. It's Rafa. He's a machine. He has proved, far and away, that when it comes to the red stuff, he is the best of all time. The only question mark over him now is this - is he too good for his own good? Will he wear himself out before the big one with all this winning?

*

*

Today's Results

*

Internazionali BNL d'Italia (Rome)

*

Men's Draw

*

Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic, 7-6 (7-2) 6-2

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Marion Bartoli def. Peng Shuai, 6-0 7-6 (7-3)

Kaia Kanepi def. Vania King, 6-4 6-3

Patty Schnyder def. Mariana Duque Marino, 7-6 (7-1) 6-3

Carla Suárez Navarro def. Anne Keothavong, 7-6 (7-5) 6-4

Sybille Bammer def. Li Na, 7-6 (7-3) 4-6 6-3

Daniela Hantuchova def. Vera Dushevina, 6-4 6-1

Francesca Schiavone def. Alberta Brianti, 6-3 6-4

María José Martínez Sánchez def. Amélie Mauresmo, 4-6 7-6 (7-4) 6-2

Lucie Safarova def. Mariya Koryttseva, 7-6 (7-5) 6-2

Yaroslava Shvedova def. Samantha Stosur, 6-4 6-2

Ayumi Morita def. Monica Niculescu, 6-1 6-3

*

*

Estoril Open (Estoril)

*

Maximo Gonzalez def. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez, 6-4 6-3

*

*

BMW Open (Munich)

*

Nicolas Almagro def. Jan Hernych, 6-3 6-4

*

*

Porsche Tennis Grand Prix (Stuttgart)

*

Svetlana Kuznetsova def. Dinara Safina, 6-4 6-3

Ladies and Gentlemen, Miss Dinara Safina

How 'bout that Dinara Safina, eh? This has been SUCH a career year for her. If anyone is the #1 slayer this year, it is her. Who was it that defeated Justine Henin in her last ever match? They would be Dinara. Who slew Maria Sharapova, the new #1, in an epic fourth round match at Roland Garros to take that ranking away? D-Saf again. And now, who has ruined Jelena Jankovic's chances of becoming #1 this week? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Miss Dinara Safina.

*

Dinara is still a long way off becoming #1 herself - about 1600 points, in fact - but she is doing all the right things right now. She is gaining that thing which has been so elusive for her elder brother Marat - consistency. How many finals have we seen Dinara in this year? It's been quite a few. I don't follow women's tennis all that much, but even I've noticed that it's been a few.

*

Winning that Tier I tournament in Berlin just before the French Open was a real turning point for Dinara, I think. She has never really looked back. That narrow defeat in the third round of Wimbledon could have destroyed her confidence, but clearly she hasn't let it. She has just beat Jelena Jankovic - and that is not easy to do, especially considering Jelena is so close to being #1 she can practically smell it. Who would have picked Dinara Safina to make the French Open final? Not me, certainly - but I am so glad she did! She is my favourite women's player right now.

*

In fact, I'm going to make a bold, sweeping statement. The winners of the US Open this year will be Roger Federer and Dinara Safina. I have spoken. So shall it be.

*

Over in Toronto, we have a Nadal/Kiefer final. I don't know if anyone picked that final. Nadal, maybe, but not Kiwi. I'm not a huge Kiwi fan, but this has got to be so good for him - and he really has showed some grit in coming back from that debilitating injury. And even though I do like the Raf, I think I'm going to be cheering for Kiwi. Because I don't want Rafa gaining any more nasty rankings points, even if he does deserve them. Because my heart belongs to Roger.

*

Even still... better Rafa than Novak! I would like to point out that Roger is not the only one losing points this week - Novak will lose a hefty swag as well. Add that to the hefty swag he lost at Wimbledon, and... it might just be all about the Big Two again. This Big Three thing might have been a bit of a flash in the pan. Djokovic is still miles ahead of Davydenko and Ferrer, but the gap is narrowing, just a bit. And I like that. Djokovic is the anti-Federer, in my books... what is bad for Roger will always be good for Novak, in my books! If Roger had to drop points this week, I am very glad he wasn't alone.

*

Yes, I am a horrible person, wishing ill on a tennis player I've never even met. At least I know it.

*

*

Today's Results

*

Rogers Masters (Toronto)

*

Rafael Nadal def. Andy Murray, 7-6 (7-2) 6-3

Nicolas Kiefer def. Gilles Simon, 6-7 (4-7) 6-3 7-6 (7-5)

*

*

East West Bank Classic (Los Angeles)

*

Dinara Safina def. Jelena Jankovic, 7-6 (7-3) 6-1

Flavia Pennetta def. Bethanie Mattek, 3-6 6-2 7-5

*

*

Banka Koper Slovenia Open (Portoroz)

*

Sara Errani def. Caroline Wozniacki, 6-4 6-4

Anabel Medina Garrigues def. Julia Goerges, 6-3 2-6 6-4

Into The Green

Well, I'm back, to quote Samwise Gamgee. A little older, a little wiser, but I'm back. I don't know if I'm fully recovered from that devastating loss - I am a big enough Federer fan that it will take a while yet - but we're working on it.

*

In the future, I intend to profile some players and stuff here before Wimbledon - do a bit of the ol' human interest, if you know what I mean - but for now, it's late, so I'm not going to say too much. Suffice to say that I still love Roger Federer quite a lot... and now the grass court season is here, which is his time to shine.

*

The grass court season is strange for we Fedfans. It's great because, hey, our boy never loses on it - his last loss on a grass court was in 2002 in the first round of Wimbledon to Mario Ancic. He was 21- younger than I am. Younger than Rafa is now. But grass is hard as well, because there's so much added pressure. No one really expects Roger to win on clay. That's Rafa's playground. But grass... if he lost there, the fan would fall from the ceiling there'd be so much shit flung at it, if you catch my drift.

*

Not that I think Roger will lose on grass, because he is the mighty mighty grass king. But I still remember the palpitations from last year's Wimbledon final. Thanks for that one, Rafa. You might have made me real sad laying that beatdown on Roger in the Roland Garros final a couple of days ago, but you damn near killed me nearly taking him out at SW19 last year.

*

Roger's playing Halle this year, which I think is a good thing. He won Wimbledon last year, as he has for the last five years, but he looked less secure than when he had played Halle as a warm up (which he did not do.) Also, strange as this might sound, it gives him an opportunity to lose. I don't want him to, obviously, but if his grass court streak HAD to be broken, I'd far rather it were in Halle that at Wimbledon. It's a win-win situation, in some respects: if Roger wins Halle, he goes into Wimbledon very confident with grass court matchplay, if he loses somewhere in there, he doesn't have the pressure of that insane streak riding above his head. Although if he were to lose... not only would I cry quite a lot, but can you imagine the press? They'd be circling like vultures.

*

All this Federer speak and he hasn't even played this week! We have five major tournaments this week - Queen's, Halle, Warsaw, Birmingham and Barcelona. The first three are ATP, the latter two WTA. I have no way of watching any of them, so I don't know how much actual tennis commentary I'll be doing... hence the human interest stories in the lead up to the big ol' Slam. I mentioned a lot of players I liked the look of during my Roland Garros blog - and, indeed, my Australia blog. We're talking Alize Cornet, Ernests Gulbis, Eduardo Schwank... the lot. Let's see what dirt I can dig up on them... and, obviously, expect a heavy Federer focus, because that man is what began it all for me.

*

*

Today's Results

*

Artois Championships (Queen's Club, London)

*

Jonas Bjorkman def. Igor Kunitsyn, 7-6 (7-3) 4-6 6-4

Kei Nishikori def. Alejandro Falla, 2-6 6-4 6-2

Marat Safin def. James Ward, 4-6 6-1 6-4

Joseph Sirianni def. Alex Bogdanovic, 6-3 6-3

Robby Ginepri def. Vince Spadea, 6-4 7-6 (7-4)

Chris Guccione def. Yen-hsun Lu, 604 6-7 (2-7) 7-5

Ernests Gulbis def. Kristof Vliegen, 6-4 7-5

Sebastien Grosjean def. Rik de Voest, 7-6 (8-6) 6-1

Mario Ancic def. Nicolas Lapentti, 7-5 6-3

Fernando Verdasco def. Hyung-taik Lee, 5-3 retired

Viktor Troicki def. Dudi Sela, 6-4 6-4

Marin Cilic def. Jurgen Melzer, 7-6 (7-2) 7-6 (7-5)

Lleyton Hewitt def. Joshua Goodall, 6-4 6-4

Janko Tipsarevic def. Ivan Navarro, 7-6 (7-2) 6-4

Roko Karanusic def. Flavio Cipolla, 6-4 6-3

*

*

Gerry Weber Open (Halle)

*

Philipp Kohlschreiber def. Julien Benneteau, 6-4 6-1

Robin Soderling def. Philipp Petzschner, 6-4 4-6 6-4

Tomas Berdych def. Thomas Johansson, 6-3 7-5

Mischa Zverev def. Jarkko Nieminen, 2-6 6-4 6-2

Andreas Beck def. Marc Gicquel, 6-7 (4-7) 7-4 (7-4) 6-3

Benjamin Becker def. Denis Gremelmayr, 6-4 6-2

*

*

Warszawianka Sport Club (Warsaw)

*

Jiri Vanek def. Carlos Berlocq, 1-6 6-2 7-6 (7-5)

Evgeny Korolev def. Victor Hanescu, 6-4 6-2

Potito Starace def. Dawid Olejniczak, 6-2 6-3

Marcos Daniel def. Filippo Volandri, 6-3 6-4

Florent Serra def. Guillermo Coria, 6-3 retired

*

*

DFS Classic (Birmingham)

*

Sunitha Rao def. Petra Kvitova, 7-6 (10-8) 6-4

Naomi Cavaday def. Jill Craybas, 6-0 6-4

Yaroslava Shvedova def. Akgul Amanmuradova, 6-3 6-1

Katie O'Brien def. Alla Kudryavtseva, 6-0 3-6 7-6 (7-2)

Tatiana Poutchek def. Ioana Raluca Olaru, 6-0 7-6 (8-6)

Yanina Wickmayer def. Youlia Fedossova, 6-1 6-4

Aiko Nakamura def. Tzipora Obziler, 7-5 6-3

Sorana Cirstea def. Ayumi Morita, 6-2 6-0

Melanie South def. Anna Fitzpatrick, 6-4 6-4

Tamarine Tanasugarn def. Monica Niculescu, 6-3 6-4

Bethanie Mattek def. Jarmila Gajdosova, 7-6 (7-1) 6-2

Aravane Rezai def. Amanda Elliott, 6-3 2-6 7-6 (10-8)

Ekaterina Makarova def. Elena Baltacha, 7-5 7-6 (7-1)

Angelique Kerber def. Olga Puchkova, 6-4 6-3

*

*

Campeonatos Internacionales de Tenis Femenino de Espana (Barcelona)

*

Eloisa Compostizode de Andres def. Emilie Loit, 6-7 (4-7) 6-4 7-6 (7-5)

Varvara Lepchenko def. Rossana de los Rios, 7-5 6-2

Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez def. Aleksandra Wozniak, 6-4 6-1

Pauline Parmentier def. Sanda Mamic, 6-2 3-6 6-2

Magdalena Rybarikova def. Maria Elena Camerin, 6-1 6-2

Klara Zakopalova def. Karolina Sprem, 6-2 6-7 (3-7) 6-2

Nuria Llagostera Vives def. Shahar Peer, 7-5 6-2

What Makes A Champion

It will come as no surprise that I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

*

The match has only just finished, and it will equally come as no surprise that I am crying too hard to see my keyboard. So if there are any typos, that's why - I'm relying on my ability to touchtype. I wanted Roger to win so badly. So badly. It would have meant so much for him.

*

And for me.

*

I know I refused to call the final. But I think in many ways I refused to call the final because I did not want to admit the possibility, the probability that Roger (my Roger) would lose. I wanted him to win so, so badly. But Rafa was so dominant, so good, such a fabulous player.

*

I am glad that it is Rafa, and not anyone else, that has beaten my Roger. This loss, although it is hard to swallow, particularly with the breadstick and the bagel in there, is not as hard to swallow as the loss to Djokovic at the Australian. That does not make it easy by any means, but the pain is slightly less. And... to tell the truth, I think I knew Rafa would win.

*

And that makes me feel bad. No one believed in Roger - not even me. If I could have believed a little bit more, could have had a little bit more faith in him... would it have made a difference?

*

I know that it wouldn't have. My little blog is nothing compared to the vast, vast spectrum of the media. But I wish I could have believed in him that little bit more.

*

I realise that this is a sentiment that is usually more associated with religion than with sport. I am not a religious person whatsoever. Federer is my hero, not my god. And I know, that unlike a god, he is fallible. I don't think I would admire him, love him quite so much if he were not fallible. Part of the immense charm of Federer is that he can take a loss like a man. 'You should never take anything away from the other guy,' Roger once said (slightly paraphrased, possibly), 'because you know I was trying my best.'

*

The media were down on Roger. I wonder if that affected him? Because this is his worst loss at Roland Garros in a while. I cannot remember the last time Roger took a bagel. He wins the Golden Bagel all the time for bagelling other people, not for taking a bagel. I don't want to make excuses for him, because I know he will not make excuses for himself, but his head was not there today. What happened, Roger? Where did you go?

*

That said, Nadal played phenomenally. 46 winners to 7 unforced errors is absolutely insane. I can't remember the last time someone had such amazing stats. He emulated Federer's Australian Open 2007 feat of winning the tournament without losing a set. I am so, so sad. I cannot express how sad I am. But I do not want to take any credit away from Nadal.

*

If Rafa had been playing anyone else in the final, I would have wanted him to win. I would have gloried in this victory. But Roger... oh, Roger.

*

I know my writing is not the best right now. It never is, when I am crying so much... and the tears have not yet abated. Perhaps tomorrow, when the pain has subsided some, I can write about the match with some clarity. Because, yes, I do intend to continue this blog. I am going to write through Halle and Queen's and all the way through the end of Wimbledon (where I once again expect a Roger/Rafa final, but this time with a different result.) I don't know if I will focus heavily on those tournaments, because I have no way of seeing them live, but I can reflect on the results and perhaps profile some of the players I have talked about this season.

*

A word, before I go, on Rafa. I am so, so glad that he was the one that beat Roger, if it had to be anyone. He was such a gentleman in victory, and in some respects, he felt sad for Roger. (Though obviously not as sad as I felt, and nowhere near as sad as Roger felt.) I am glad that there is a man like Rafa about to stand behind the Federer throne, to dominate at Roland Garros. I like Rafa. I know I said I wouldn't be too disappointed if I won, and that is, to some extent, the truth. I wanted Roger to win so very, very badly - more than I have wanted anything for a long time now. History was on the line here. And I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed that he lost. But there is no one that can say Rafa did not deserve and earn this win. He is deservedly the 2008, Borg-emulating Roland Garros champion.

*

Congratulations, Rafa. May you vamos for many years to come.

*

I might write more about this final tomorrow, when I can actually see the keyboard... and when I am slightly more sober, because I drank a bottle of wine trying to cope with my nerves. But I would like to end with this. Roger Federer is not a champion because he has won Slams. I do not like Roger Federer because he has won Slams. I am a Federer fan because of the person he is, because of the ambassador he is for the sport, and for what he has brought me, the lessons I have learned from him and his attitude on the court. This may have been a tough loss, but Roger took it like a man. That is a lesson in and of itself. He is a great, great champion. There will never be a champion as profoundly excellent, on and off the court, as Roger Federer.

*

And so I will always be a Federer fan, come what may. Because no matter whether he wins or loses, Roger Federer is always a champion for me.

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #15

*

Men's Draw

*

Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer, 6-1 6-3 6-0

Welcome to Thunder Dome

Two men enter. One man leaves.

*

Okay, the 'men' in question here are Ana Ivanovic and Dinara Safina, but the Mel Gibson reference still stands. There is no arena in modern sport so fiercely gladiatorial as that of a Grand Slam final. Two players enter, their only weapons their racquets, their skills and their minds. Only one can leave a champion.

*

In this case, it was Ana Ivanovic. I was going for Dinara Safina, and I really thought that she had the game to win, but Ivanovic really was due. A third Grand Slam final loss - especially a final she was expected to win - might have been catastrophic for her career, particularly as regards her mental stability. She hasn't been the strongest player mentally in the past, and the last thing she needed was a monkey on her back. And even though she is younger than Dinara, as a top-echelon tennis player I would make her senior, and it really was Ana's turn. This has been coming for a while.

*

Even though I was gunning for Dinara, I like Ana and I like the way she plays. It was always going to be interesting to see how she performed on this court after she froze up so totally against Justine last year. (Speaking of Justine, what the hell was she doing there? Wasn't the whole point of her retirement that she was sick of tennis? Or am I missing something? Go figure.) Both players started nervously - understandably. I wasn't surprised when Dinara dropped her first service game, and I wouldn't have been surprised if Ana had dropped hers. But no. She overcame it. She held on.

*

I take nothing away from Dinara Safina. She is a fine, fine player - as I have elaborated ad nauseam over the past few days! - and I think there are more Slam finals, and maybe even victories, in her future. I liked her chances today, because she has been so tough mentally over her past matches. And she was tough again today. But she was outplayed, short and simple. This match was always going to hang on Ivanovic's racquet, and on her nerves. She has bigger weapons than Dinara, but the test was her mind. She has been to two Slam finals (Roland Garros last year against Henin, and the Australian this year against Sharapova) and she has never yet won a set.

*

Until today.

*

It is only fitting, I suppose, that Ivanovic assume the heavy mantle of world number #1 with a Slam title to her name. With Justine gone, there are not many Slam winners in the top five (not compared to the men's game.) Sharapova has three, Kuznetsova has one, Dementieva has been to a final. Jankovic has never made it. It's a few places down to the Williamses, who have about fifteen between them. But now Ivanovic has one, and I would not be surprised to see her add more soon.

*

It will be interesting to see how Dinara backs up after this final, as well. She has moved into the top #10 on the rankings, and if she keeps her level of play up, she can move higher. Although she lost today, she has beaten three of those top five in this Slam. Sharapova, Dementieva and Kuznetsova all fell to her, and Dinara has really showed that she has got guts and nerves. She might not have broken through as early as Marat, with his US Open win as a teenager in 2000, but if Dinara can accept her loss and see her run to the final as what it really is - totally magnificent - she is going to be something else. I would not be surprised to see Dinara making an assault on the top five come the hardcourt season. In fact, she only has second round points to defend at Wimbledon - if she can translate her awesome claycourt game to the grass (which is certainly possible - we have seen Rafa Nadal do something like it in the past two years) - she can totally launch herself up there now. Ivanovic may have won today, but she might have to start watching her back - Dinara's a-coming.

*

Actually, on a bit of an aside, I would love to see Dinara play mixed doubles with her brother at Wimbledon. I don't know if the chances of that are very high, but I think they'd be a good duo... although they might destroy a record number of racquets between them.

*

But today belongs to Ivanovic. She is the one who left Philippe Chatrier (aka Thunder Dome) crowned champion and world number #1. She is, in my mind, the favourite to win Wimbledon - to do a Borg, as it were. Ana Ivanovic deserves this win.

*

The person I really feel sorry for is Jelena Jankovic, to tell the truth. She's a wonderful player, one of the finest that Serbia has ever produced... and she had to be around at the same time as Ivanovic, who is younger, and has beat her to the punch when it comes to winning a Slam and becoming world number #1. But we can't say it wasn't like Jelena didn't have her chances. She looked a cert to make it through to the final in the third set of her semi against Ana. But it was Ana who rose to the occasion, and it is Ana Ivanovic who is now, undoubtedly, the world number #1 for women's tennis.

*

I don't think there can be any doubt that the two girls who reached the final thoroughly deserved to be there. Dinara, after her run at Berlin and her constant presence in the round of sixteen and the quarters, was due a breakthrough, and she has been one of the form players this season. And Ivanovic demolished her opponents before she was tested by Jankovic - a test she passed by showing the grit and the nerve of a champion and not just the instincts of a frontrunner. So congratulations, Dinara. Congratulations, Ana. I think we'll be seeing these two meet in Thunder Dome again.

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #14

*

Women's Draw

*

Ana Ivanovic def. Dinara Safina, 6-4 6-3

Destiny

It was inevitable.

*

It was inexorable. It was irresistible. It was fate.

*

It was destiny.

*

Even before the tournament, everyone knew who was going to clash in the final. Rafael Nadal, #2 in the world, greatest claycourter who has ever lived, undefeated at Roland Garros, seeking to emulate Bjorn Borg. And Roger Federer, the most transcedent player in history, the most dominant player in history, arguably the greatest player in history, who no longer plays against opponents, but against history, the measure of his own greatness.

*

Destiny.

*

I got my wish last night. I've been rabbiting on and on about how Rafa Nadal needs to teach the upstart Novak Djokovic some respect, and if he didn't do it in that semi final, I don't know what he did. He crushed Djokovic - totally obliterated him. Djokovic staged a mini comeback to bring that third set to a breaker, but Nadal owned that match from start to finish. It was too little, too late for Novak. Rafa owned him - and showed him why he is #2, and Novak is #3.

*

They were talking about Rafa on Radio Roland Garros the other day - I think it was during his match against Almgaro - and they said that he is not only the best player in the wolrd on clay, but he is a 'claycourt boss.' This struck me as oddly appropriate, especially considering my stance in the Federer camp. I've never been one for video games and Playstations and whatnot (and yes, I realise that that last sentence made me sound approximately 844 years old!) but I remember watching my little brothers play them. At the end of every level, or every few levels, there'd be a 'boss' - a sort of super opponent that the hero had to overcome to ascend to the next level.

*

I believe that Federer has already proved himself to be the greatest player of all time, but there are many who believe he still needs the Coupe de Mousquetaires in his trophy cabinet to cement it. If he wins, if he, the hero, can overcome Rafa, the claycourt boss, then I don't think there will be a person in the world who can doubt his claim to be the best player to ever pick up a racquet.

*

That said, he has an uphill road ahead of him. Rafa has been playing sublime tennis. Much as I don't like Djokovic, he is a decent player, and it ain't just everyone who can bundle him out of a Slam in three straight sets. Federer's semi against Monfils was much more scratchy. Federer came through, which is the important thing - as long as you win, it doesn't matter how you do it, in my book - but he was less convincing.

*

Gael Monfils is a strange player. I follow the Russians, especially Safin and Tursunov, and so I understand how a player can run hot and cold, but he takes it to extremes. I have never known a player who can suck so totally one moment and then be so brilliant the next. I sent in a question to Radio Roland Garros the other night, asking who they thought was the most naturally gifted players on the circuit. Both said Federer without skipping a beat - which was the answer I was fishing for! - but it would be interesting to see who these tennis professionals rank next. Federer is the most gifted on the tour, no doubt about it, but it seems to me that Monfils has an obscene amount of talent which has never been actualised. (The same goes for Richard Gasquet, but to a lesser extent.) Sadly for Gael, I don't know if it ever will be, despite his excellent run here: he gets injured too easily to be a constant presence in the top echelons of tennis, as his career up to this point demonstrated,

*

But the semi finals are over now. Djokovic and Monfils have faded into the background, with the other players who have lost this week. Of one hundred and twenty eight men, two remain. Roger Federer. Rafael Nadal. The titans of the game.

*

In some respects, it is such a shame that these two great players had to exist at the same time. Without Rafa, Roger would have won certainly the last two and maybe the last three Roland Garroses, which would have given him the Grand Slam two years in a row and have put him past the Pete Sampras Slam record. Without Roger, Rafa would have won a couple of Wimbledons and would have been #1 - and a dominant one - a long time ago. Outside the claycourt season, I feel Rafa is underrated, but if he were not living in the shadow of Federer, then I don't think that'd be the case.

*

But they do exist at the same time. Roger stands between Rafa and Bjorn Borg's record, Rafa stands between Roger and history. This title is so important for both of them, and they both deserve it.

*

This is why, even though I want Roger to win so badly, I am not going to pick a winner for this match. No one can doubt the might and the dominance on clay of Rafa Nadal - who has grown up and become a lovely young man, and Federer's friend. I talked about this a few days ago, but I think there is a period in every Federer fan's life when they hate Rafa for being the roadblock on Roger's road to greatness, on being the 'boss' that Roger just can't quite get past, but to view Rafa just as a roadblock is very disrespectful. Rafa Nadal is a great ambassador for the sport, and I'm glad that he and Federer get along so well, because tennis needs men like these.

*

It is only fitting that these two meet in the final. If Federer is to win Roland Garros, it is only fitting that he beats Nadal to do it. If Nadal is to win his fourth title in a row, it is only fitting that he overcome the best possible opponent to do it.

*

It is destiny.

*

I make no bones of it - I want Federer to win. I will be cheering for my Roger with everything I have. But if Rafa were to win, that wouldn't be so bad either. If there is ever time when it is understandable to lose a tennis match, it is against Rafa Nadal in his playground, at Roland Garros (or, looking ahead, against Roger Federer on the green grass of Wimbledon.) Whichever man wins it, they will have deserved it, and even though Federer will always come first for me, I admire them both greatly.

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #13

*

Men's Draw

*

Roger Federer def. Gael Monfils, 6-2 5-7 6-3 7-5

Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic, 6-4 6-2 7-6 (7-3)

Champion Nouveau

Dinara Safina, here's looking at you, kid.

*

She is, in my mind, the story of the tournament. Forget Gael Monfils and his Marcos/Jo-W-like run to the semis. It's all about Dinara. Hell, she is the story of the claycourt season. In years to come, she'll be a Trivial Pursuit question: 'who defeated Justine Henin in her last ever professional match?' It was Dinara. Her streak, from Berlin through to the final here, has included wins over two world #1s in Henin and Sharapova. She has taken out Kuznetsova, Serena Williams, Azarenka, Dementieva (twice). Dinara Safina is a force to be reckoned with, and she is declaring herself.

*

Everyone was talking about what a great run Dinara had had, but was pretty sure she couldn't back it up against Kuznetsova. I did it too - I think yesterday I was going with Sveta from the head, but Dinara from the gut. But I picked Dinara, and I was right. There was never, ever a moment in this match when Sveta looked like winning. The match hung on Dinara's racquet, and she rose to the occasion magnificently.

*

Sveta certainly did not play as well as she is capable of, and that is very sad for her. She was the only remaining person in the women's draw to have won a Grand Slam title, so now whoever wins the final is going to be a first-time Slam winner, which is going to be great. I'm not really into women's tennis - on the whole, I don't think it's as interesting as men's - but maybe I'll start following it a bit more closely now. Maybe what I really lacked was a champion. On the men's side, I have always had Federer. I was a Federer fan before I was a tennis fan! But on the women's side, there have been players I've liked (Petrova, for example, and, back in the day, Hingis) but I've never had one that I follow like I follow Federer.

*

Well, Dinara, get ready, because I think I'm throwing my weight behind you.

*

I have liked every little thing about the way Dinara has played this week. She has been let down by her mental toughness in the past, but that is no longer in question. You don't come back from match point down IN TWO SEPARATE MATCHES without having a little somethin' somethin' going on upstairs. Her shots against Sveta today were sweet - the forehand especially, which she crunched like nothing else. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Dinara Safina is not just Marat Safin's kid sister any more.

*

Can she win the final, against Ana Ivanovic - who will be #1 in the world come the new rankings on Monday? Can she add yet another scalp to her already impressive collection?

*

Yes, she can.

*

That's my pick. That's what I'm saying. I'm calling it. Dinara Safina, Roland Garros Champion for 2008.

*

Speaking of Ivanovic, what a bizarre match that match between her and Jankovic was. First Jankovic was destroying her, then Ivanovic was suddenly striking it superbly, then Jankovic was destroying her again, then it was a struggle and the Match of a Thousand Breaks. It is sad, really, that one of these girls had to lose... especially as it'll be such an ego blow for Jankovic. Ivanovic is younger, and she made #1 first. Ivanovic won the Serbian National Championships here, and Jankovic can only stand in her shadow.

*

I'm sure Jelena's time will come. But it must be very frustrating for her.

*

I don't follow the women's game very much, so I don't know, but is Ana always so streaky? She had an amazing hot streak of about ten games in the latter half of the first set and the first half of the second set, then she totally went off the boil and let Jelena back into it. She's not going to stay #1 for a very long time if she doesn't play a little more consistently... but for all I know, she might do, and this match might be an anomaly. Ana and Jelena must know each other's games pretty well, hence the numerous breaks of serve.

*

So, regardless of the result on Saturday, Ana Ivanovic is the new #1 for the women's draw. Sharapova falls to #2, Jelena and Sveta are solid at #3 and #4, and Dinara skips into #9. It will be interesting to see how this stands after Wimbledon. Wimbledon traditionally favours a different kind of player, because the grass courts are lightning fast. The finalists last year were Venus Williams and Marion Bartoli, but judging by present form, I don't think we're going to see either there - especially Bartoli, who has been playing dreadfully of late. We might see Serena do well. Ana, as well, will be a big threat. It will be interesting to see how my new champion Dinara does - how will she adjust to the faster game of Wimbledon? I think she'll rise to the occasion with aplomb, but only time will tell. It is, of course, totally irrelevant that her brother Marat hated it - anyone else remember his 'grass is for cows, I'm never coming back' speech? - because Dinara and Marat are DIFFERENT players. Oh yeah.

*

The Nadal/Djokovic showdown is first up tonight, followed by Roger versus La Monf. I can't remember ever cheering for Rafa in a semi - I've always been feverishly hoping he'll get knocked out so Federer will have a better chance of winning the tournament... which is bad sportsfanmanship. But oh! how I am cheering for Rafa tonight. The #2 ranking is on the line, and Rafa is going to pound Djokovic and his arrogance INTO THE GROUND. It is only right that this final is between Roger and Rafa. I said yesterday I didn't want to throw around words like 'destiny' but that's pretty much what it is. We have the same set up as the Australian Open semis - Roger, Rafa, Novak and some random French guy. But this time, Novak and the random French guy are going NO FURTHER.

*

The standard and difficulty of the Roger/La Monf match will be determined by how well La Monf plays. He is notoriously streaky. Roger might have to weather the storm in some instances, like he did with Gonzalez. But there is no doubt in my mind that my Roger will come out on top.

*

And there is no doubt in my mind that Rafa will DESTROY Djokovic, and teach him some respect.

*

And there is no doubt in my mind that Dinara Safina can win the French Open. Davai Dinara!

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #12

*

Women's Draw

*

Dinara Safina def. Svetlana Kuznetsova, 6-3 6-2

Ana Ivanovic def. Jelena Jankovic, 6-4 3-6 6-4

Flicking the Switch

There is a moment in a lot of tennis matches when it is balancing on the edge of a knife. You never realise that that was what this moment was until after the fact, when you have the luxury of hindsight, but sometimes in a match there is a moment when the tide just turns, when the momentum shifts, when a match that was going one way suddenly starts going another.

*

There were two matches like this yesterday. I'm going to begin with less dramatic of the two - the Federer/Gonzalez match. It is melodramatic to say that this was a knife edge match, because it was hardly close in the end, but in the beginning it looked like it could be a real struggle.

*

There are not many people who can beat Roger Federer 6-2 in a set. You look at matches where Federer drops sets, and a lot of them are breakers, or 7-5 sets, or 6-4 - one break of serve. To get a double break against Federer is - well, not unheard of, but pretty damn difficult. Federer wasn't playing out-of-his-skin amazing tennis in the first set, certainly not as well as he is capable of playing, but Gonzalez was playing out of his skin. And congratulations to him for it, because it is a feat.

*

And then... Federer switched on.

*

You'll often hear commentators talk about the ability of the top players, particularly Federer, to shift up a gear, to raise the level of play. How often have we seen Federer break his opponents basically at will to win a set? It's like he makes a decision in his head - "okay, Roger, break them now" - and then just does it. It's amazing - and what is more amazing is that the Federer gear-shift phenomenon isn't limited to a great game here and there. He can raise his level of play - and keep it there.

*

This is something Gonzalez clearly has to learn. His first set was brilliant, but then he went off the boil. (Actually, one of the Radio Roland Garros commentators said that if Gonzo could play the way he did in his first set in all his matches, he'd be #1 in the world. I don't know about #1, but I think the big three would be quaking in their boots!) He came down a bit, right at the same time as Federer came up. Federer sustained an amazing level of play for the remaining three sets. When Federer flicked the switch, Gonzo never had a prayer.

*

I judge how well a Federer match is going by how nervous I am. There have been some nailbiters in the past - the five set final of Wimbledon '07, that match in Monte Carlo against Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo, and for those of you that read this blog over the Australian summer, you will remember how exactly I tried to cope with my nerves during that Federer/Tipsarevic match. Sometimes he can be in the lead by two sets or something and my heart will be in my throat. Other times, he can be behind - like today - and I'm not nervous at all, because I know, I KNOW, that he is going to steady the ship.

*

Roger Federer has not let me down once.

*

The three sets that followed the Gonzo-dominated first set were vintage Federer. He hasn't been serving especially well of late, but he picked it up, and managed to conceal any remaining shortfall by some excellent netplay - he won some obscene amounts of points at the net, something like 29 from 35 - and his backhand was a standout among his multifarious arsenal. A friend of mine and I once nicknamed the backhand down the line shot as the 'Lily O'Dwyer' (a thing of beauty - a reference to 'The Calcium Kid') and Roger sure hit a few Lilies today. He was dangerous, lethal.

*

This is another thing that is great about five set matchplay. This match showed how easy it is, even for the great ones, even for the Greatest Of All Time (tm), to lose a set. Sure, if this had been a best-of-three match Federer still would have won, but the mental terrain of the match (so to speak) would have been very different. You lose another set in a best-of-three match, and you're gone, sunshine. The mental pressure is much more concentrated.

*

Which makes, I think, the achievement of Dinara Safina today especially good. Women don't have the luxury of the throwaway set. Federer can flick his switch and suddenly play better seemingly at will, but I'm beginning to think that the switch for Safina is having a match point against her. Like in the Sharapova match, Dementieva held a match point today. And Safina came through.

*

I'm not sure how educated this analysis is, but maybe Safina is able to relax into her shots more when she knows she has nothing to lose. The match was basically gone, and so maybe that knowledge, the idea that what she does doesn't matter that much, enables her to swing more freely, at least for a little while. Certainly once she got that set back to a breaker it was game on. (And what a strange, seesawing breaker that was!) But then when Dinara hit her stride and hit the front in that third set, there was no stopping her. She was like a steamroller. Dementieva ain't no slouch, and even though she wasn't playing great in the third set, she didn't totally suck, but Dinara bagelled her.

*

I don't know if Dinara is going to be able to get away with coming to the brink and clawing her way back against Svetlana Kuznetsova, who has been playing astonishingly well. My head is telling me Sveta will win this one. But I still like Dinara's chances - and that is where my heart lies. So I am going to pick Dinara to be the finalist from this side. (And thus win the Russian national championship - how bizarre was the draw? It was like all the Russians were on one side, and everyone else on the other. There was Safina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Sharapova... they were all floating around there. It was weird.)

*

On the other side (in the Serbian national championship) is Ivanovic vs. Jankovic. I think this'll be a tight one, but I'm going with Ivanovic. She played a bit scratchily yesterday, but I think her overall form is better, especially as Jankovic seems to have that niggling shoulder injury. So Jodi is calling it: Ivanovic/Safina final.

*

On the men's side, it seems pretty clear. I don't want to start throwing round words like 'destiny' and 'inevitable' but it is a little bit like that. Nadal over Djokovic. Federer over Monfils. The titans meet again. Roger/Rafa final.

*

I'm not giving you my prediction for the winner until the finals are locked in, but I think that, if you see who I devoted this blog post to today, you can see where my heart lies.

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #11

*

Men's Draw

*

Roger Federer def. Fernando Gonzalez, 2-6 6-2 6-3 6-4

Gael Monfils def. David Ferrer, 6-3 3-6 6-3 6-1

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Dinara Safina def. Elena Dementieva, 4-6 7-6 (7-5) 6-0

Svetlana Kuznetsova def. Kaia Kanepi, 7-5 6-2

Conquistador

When Rafael Nadal won the Roland Garros final against Roger Federer last year, I distinctly remember the Roland Garros commentator being able to say nothing more than, "Rafa Nadal, Rafa Nadal, Rafa Nadal." I was very preoccupied at the time with being sad about Federer losing, and so they might have said other stuff that I've forgotten about, but that one stayed with me. I pictured the commentator sitting there and shaking his head in disbelief at what this twenty-one year old had done. Because, as we often forget, Rafa is very young. He's been around forever, but today was his birthday: his twenty-second birthday. Rafael Nadal, three time Grand Slam champion, most dominant #2 player ever and arguably the greatest claycourter of all time, is younger than I am. (By less than a year, sure - but if you compare what I have achieved in my life to what Rafa has, the difference is pretty pronounced!)

*

People are always talking about the 'Big Three' in men's tennis: Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, and about how Djokovic is rising so fast and about how Federer had better watch his back. If one of these three tennis players could be called the forgotten member of the Big Three, it's definitely Nadal. When he was the only real challenger to the Federer dominance, people were talking about him all the time. Now that there's a new guy, people tend to forget about Rafa a little bit.

*

They shouldn't. No one should ever, ever forget about Rafa Nadal.

*

I am, above all things, a Federer fan, and I think there has been a point in every Federer fan's life where they have hated Rafa with a fiery passion. I know I used to dislike him vehemently, especially in 2006, when Federer's emotional victory at the Australian Open turned me from a person who liked tennis into an avid follower. This was the claycourt season when, for the first time, it seemed like Roger had a real chance at winning the Slam. One man stood in his way. Rafa Nadal. And that kid is some roadblock.

*

It is not Novak Djokovic who has stopped Federer winning the Slam. There has only ever been one man who can claim to have stopped the inexorable Fed-Express. Rafa Nadal.

*

These were the days when Rafa, who was very young, nineteen, twenty, used to celebrate like a crazy monkey on court when he won, after every point, whether it was a winner or a mistake of the opponent. For me, attracted to the calm, gentlemanlike demeanour of Federer, this was the nail in Rafa's coffin. 'Vamos' was possibly my least favourite word - after maybe Lleyton's interminable 'c'mon.' And then there was the constant, smothering presence of Uncle Toni - so smothering that even Federer, the eternal sportsman, accused him of oncourt coaching.

*

But then something happened. Rafa grew up.

*

As one of the top players in the world, it is Rafa's duty to be a statesman and a spokesperson for tennis. In those early days, when he was just a big kid, dancing around and Vamosing on court, there was the phenomenon of 'Rafamania,' but there were also an equal amount of people that disliked him. But over the years, we have seen Rafa mature incredibly. He has assumed the mantle of statesman, as international representative for tennis, calmed down, cooled down, and dug his heels in. Often, those crazy-monkey celebrators, the precocious kids, are flashes in the pan.

*

Not Rafa.

*

This kid is here to stay.

*

I'm not sure when I started liking Rafa. Early last year sometime, maybe. It was, like Rafa's growing up, such a gradual process that I barely noticed it happening. But Rafael Nadal is an excellent role model, in my opinion, for young tennis players. He is a brilliant player. He has held down that #2 spot for 150 weeks now. He has won three Roland Garroses and reached two Wimbledon finals. And he is still humble, still real. This is the boy who brought his mother as his date to the Laureus Awards. This is the boy who still lives in the same building as his family when he is at home in Mallorca. This is the boy who never assumes, never makes excuses, and can take it like a man when he loses.

*

I could go on a tangent here and say that this attitude is the result of the influence of Federer on the game as well as Rafa, but to place Federer in the role of Obi-Wan might be taking away a little from Rafa. Federer has been an excellent influence on the game in terms of humility and decorum, but Rafa got where he is all by himself. You can't count Rafa out, can't brush him aside. Ever.

*

I often say that Novak Djokovic has got some lessons to learn from Roger Federer. He has some to learn from Rafa Nadal, too.

*

These two will meet in the semi finals of Roland Garros. The #2 ranking is on the line. Djokovic comes into it off a good tournament, though his quarter final against Ernests Gulbis was a struggle at worst, and scratchy at best - a match that went over three hours. Rafael Nadal is coming off five matches where he has conceded only twenty five games. His opponent in the quarter finals, Nicolas Almagro, has been described as a claycourt bandito. He leads the circuit this year with the most wins on clay, including titles at Acapulco and Costa do Sauipe. Rafa himself conceded that Almagro is someone that could beat him on clay.

*

Today, the third of June 2008, on his twenty-second birthday, Rafa Nadal beat Nicolas Almagro 6-1 6-1 6-1.

*

I won't lie. I desperately want Roger Federer to win this year's French Open, to complete the set of Slams for his career, to fill that missing spot on his trophy shelf. But if Rafa Nadal wins, for the fourth year in the row, then I don't think I'll be that disappointed - because there is nobody, NOBODY, that can say this kid doesn't deserve it.

*

Happy birthday, Rafa.

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #10

*

Men's Draw

*

Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro, 6-1 6-1 6-1

Novak Djokovic def. Ernests Gulbis, 7-5 7-6 (7-3) 7-5

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Ana Ivanovic def. Patty Schnyder, 6-3 6-2

Jelena Jankovic def. Carla Suarez Navarro, 6-3 6-2

Svetlana Kuznetsova def. Victoria Azarenka, 6-2 6-3

Kaia Kanepi def. Petra Kvitova, 6-3 3-6 6-1

Not Just Marat's Little Sister Any More

Well, well, well. I told you, didn't I? I TOLD you. I told you Dinara Safina was going to beat Maria Sharapova. And you didn't believe me, did you? Hell, I didn't believe me with Safina 5-2 down in the second, when Sharapova had a match point. And then something turned. Something clicked. I don't know what happened - whether Safina got her second wind or was possessed by the mighty spirit of Federer or whether Sharapova had a total breakdown - but there you have it. Jodi was RIGHT.

*

I might stop gloating sometime soon.

*

Normally I get really, really annoyed when there's a Federer match on and something else is being covered, because I get so few chances to see Federer matches that it is very frustrating to be so close, and yet so far. And to snub a Federer match for a women's match... I don't know if there is any worse sin in the Book of Jodi. But I enjoyed every moment of this match (and, to be honest, Federer didn't seem to be playing up to his normal standard, so it was much less nerve-wracking for me to have something else to focus on!) There was a really, really distinct turnaround. Did anyone else listening on Radio Roland Garros remember the commentators (Chris Bowers and Franck Vardanega at this point, I think) talking like it was all over and saying that they'd switch over to the Federer/Benneteau match as soon as Sharapova eked out the match - which looked like being in about two points time at that point. Safina was down and out. She was almost (or maybe actually) in tears after coming back from the rain break when her game deserted her. I clearly remember one of the commentators saying that 'she couldn't even find the court.' And then... there was Dinara. And boy, did we have a match.

*

Some of this must have had to do with Sharapova as well. She's #1 in the world, and you don't get to be there very easily... even when JuJu decides to randomly retire. MaSha is renowned for her mental toughness - though personally, I have a theory that she's just afraid of the scolding she'll get from Daddy Sharapov if she doesn't come through. But we must remember that MaSha and Dinara have a history at Roland Garros. Anyone else remember a few years back when Safina came back from a 1-5 deficit in the third to win the match? That was in the round of sixteen as well. The breaking point for MaSha was in the second set today, not the third - once Dinara took the second, MaSha was never back in it, really. You can't tell me that that match wasn't playing through Sharapova's mind. And now it's happened twice. Sharapova had a match point - A MATCH POINT! - and she lost. Is Safina going to become a claycourt boogeyman for MaSha? Only time will tell.

*

That match must have been going through Dinara's mind as well - though I would venture in a different capacity. It must be comforting, knowing you can do it - come back from a massive deficit to pull out the victory. And there was SUCH a distinct turning point in this match - a moment when you could see Dinara go, 'right, let's go.' I'm not sure what exactly her motivation was - whether she just decided she was going to win because she knew she had it in her, or whether she figured that Sharapova was going to win anyway so she had nothing to lose in going for her shots - but in that service game, down 5-2, you could see it. Suddenly... the match changed.

*

The actual quality of the match was not especially high, I would guess - though having only listened to it on radio and not actually seen it, it is hard to tell - but for me, there were shades of the match that Dinara's big brother Marat played against Federer in the semis of the Australian Open in 2005. Federer had a match point, Marat looked out of it... and Marat came out of it to win in five. Even though my beloved Federer lost, that is one of my favourite matches ever, because of the struggle that went on. (And I am a big Marat fan as well, so if Roger had to lose to anyone...) I don't know if there has been a match in this decade in which both players have been playing such high quality tennis. Safin at his best is the only person who can challenge Federer at his best. I don't think I am overstating it to say that they are the two players with the greatest amount of natural talent on the ATP tour - though Federer has obviously actualised his a bit better than Safin.

*

But I digress. The Safina/Sharapova match wasn't of the same calibre as the Safin/Federer match, but I could distinctly see the likeness between Dinara and Marat. To be down... and then to steel yourself, and back yourself, and come out of it. (They seem to have similar tempers, if the racquet-throwing is anything to judge by... I wouldn't have liked to be their mother. Imagine the tantrums Marat and Dinara must thrown as kids!) Both players were down match point to the #1 player in the world. And both came out of it on top.

*

So the upshot is this: massive, MASSIVE kudos to Dinara Safina. This girl has game - and she's not just Marat Safin's little sister any more.

*

Although two of the matches were stopped by rain, I was correct in my other six quarter final picks. Safina did indeed make it through, and she will face Dementieva in the next round. That should be an interesting match - Dementieva is a veteran who is really mentally tough. I'm really gunning for Dinara to keep it going (and not, like her brother, blow hot and cold) but the possibility of a slump after the adrenaline high of this match is always there. Nevertheless, go Safina! Logic would say that Dementieva will win, but if you believe logic, we'd have Sharapova through to the next round. So I'm picking Safina as my semi finalist here.

*

The Kvitova/Kanepi match got stopped at one set all, so I don't know whether or not I'm right there. It looks like I'm going to be wrong in my Azarenka pick over Kuznetsova, as Sveta totally whaled on her in the first set, but you never know. I'll give you my semi final pick tomorrow, once we know who the quarterfinalists are!

*

And I picked all four male quarterfinalists correctly, to go with my perfect set from yesterday! (Why this talent hasn't manifested itself in the Masters Series Bracket Challenge I do not know, as I seem to totally suck at it!) Gonzalez beat Ginepri - big surprise. I think Ginepri was as surprised as I was to find himself in the fourth round. Ferrer came through against Stepanek in another five set match (does anyone else find Stepanek kind of creepy? He's a bit weird looking, but he has this string of high-profile girlfriends who are GORGEOUS - Hingis and Vaidisova, to name a few. What's going on there?) Monfils beat Ljubicic, which was sad, though one has to be a little bit glad - it would have been very depressing for the French to have five players in the round of sixteen and then to see every single one knocked out!

*

And, of course, Federer beat Benneteau. Due to the Radio Roland Garros coverage of the Safina match, I can't talk in a particularly educated way about this match, but it seemed pretty clear to me that Federer was playing exactly as well as he had to to win and nothing more - because if serves that way against a Nadal instead of a Benneteau, he will get hammered. It's probably the one part of his game that isn't back to consistently firing on four cylinders after the glandular fever. It's close - he served pretty well in the first three rounds - but there have been two occasions this season where he has been a double break up on Rafa and has lost the set. So here's hoping that he can pull it together!

*

But, hell, what am I saying? Federer won, and he won in straight sets. Sure, it wasn't a beatdown, but he was hardly out there for 6 hours, and the matchplay will certainly be good for him. I don't think he'll have too many issues with Gonzalez in the quarters if he serves all right, so he is my semi final pick there.

*

My gut is going Ferrer for the other semi, so that is who I am going to say. But I think Monfils is in with a shot. He's got the home crowd backing and that flashy shotmaking which is fabulous when it works, and Ferrer is coming off two five setters. So... we shall see, we shall see.

*

To revise my semi final picks for the bottom half - I'm seeing Jankovic/Ivanovic and Nadal/Djokovic... though I would really, really like to see Nadal/Gulbis! Surely it's time for one of the Serbian trio to fall...? I look forward, however, to a Jankovic/Ivanovic match with pleasure. That one will be really interesting - especially with the whole not liking each other aspect.

*

Actually, according to Radio Roland Garros (I'm not a junkie! I promise!) Safina and Sharapova don't like each other either. As Sharapova doesn't appear to like anyone (except maybe Maria Kirilenko) I'm not surprised. I have the feeling that all the other Russians kind of huddle in the corner and glare at her. I bet there was a party in Camp Russia last night - a tame one, of course, what with Safina having to back up in a few days! - but I sure hope Dinara's big brother clapped her on the back and told her 'well done.'

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #9

*

Men's Draw

*

Roger Federer def. Julien Benneteau, 6-4 7-5 7-5

Fernando Gonzalez def. Robby Ginepri, 7-6 (7-4) 6-3 6-1

David Ferrer def. Radek Stepanek, 4-6 6-2 1-6 6-3 6-3

Gael Monfils def. Ivan Ljubicic, 7-6 (7-1) 4-6 6-3 6-2

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Dinara Safina def. Maria Sharapova, 6-7 (6-8) 7-6 (7-5) 6-2

Elena Dementieva def. Vera Zvonareva, 6-4 1-6 6-2

The Djoker In The Pack

Seven out of eight on my predictions for quarter finals on the bottom half of the draw. Now that's not too bad, eh?

*

The one result I got wrong was the match between Flavia Pennetta and Carla Suarez Navarro. I had picked Pennetta to win, on the basis of never having heard of Suarez Navarro before, but it was Suarez Navarro who came out on top. So I did a bit of background reading on her, and it turns out that she's only nineteen, is from the Canary Islands, is ranked #132 in the world and has only played seven tour-level matches. This is her first Grand Slam. Oh yeah, and she came up through qualies to get into the main draw. I can't even remember the last time a qualifier made it to the third round, let alone the quarter finals. It seems like she's a claycourt player - and doing well at Roland Garros would certainly seem to ratify this! There's no real big gun in Spanish women's tennis at the moment - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Anabel Medina Garrigues is the Spanish #1 at the moment, and she's ranked in the high twenties somewhere. Medina Garrigues has been around for a while, so maybe Suarez Navarro can pick up the baton. One good run at Roland Garros doesn't automatically mean hey presto! career, but it'll certainly do her a world of good!

*

...not to mention that before the Suarez Navarro run to the quarters, the biggest story of the tournament for Spanish women's tennis was Nuria Llagostera Vives's naked pictures. So kudos to Suarez Navarro for overriding that with actual tennis.

*

Suarez Navarro aside, I was bang on with the rest of my quarter final picks - so, on the women's side, we're going to see Jankovic/Navarro and Ivanovic/Schnyder. All were straight sets victories. The one I expected to be tougher was the Srebotnik/Schnyder match, but Patty took her out reasonably easily end... not that it'll do her much good in the next round if Ivanovic keeps playing the way she is. Sure, Petra Cetkovska is not one of the Sharapovas or Kuznetsovas of the world, but Ivanovic double bagelled her. Excellent tennis there. If we see another Ivanovic/Sharapova final like at the Australian Open and Ivanovic plays like this, MaSha doesn't have a prayer.

*

My one concern is that Ivanovic might have peaked a bit too early. I don't think she's going to have too much trouble in her quarter final match - Schnyder is an excellent player, but I don't think she's in quite the same class - but come the semis, she could be in for it. My semi final picks for this half are Ivanovic and Jankovic, and wouldn't that be some match! Much as I was rabbiting on about Suarez Navarro before, I think Jankovic will take her out easily - provided that her shoulder injury doesn't flare up. If Jankovic were less easily injured, I think she'd have overtaken Ivanovic in the rankings by now. Not that Ivanovic isn't an excellent player, but I'd venture to say (in my extraordinarily uneducated opinion!) that Jankovic maybe has more natural talent... but it's Ivanovic who's gone deeper at the Slams, reaching the final of the French last year and the Australian this year.

*

I heard on Radio Roland Garros that Ivanovic and Jankovic don't like each other. I can't say I'm particularly surprised, to tell the truth. They seem like very different types of girls. What I'm interested to know is which side Novak Djokovic, the third member of their Serbian trio, comes down on. Is he in the corner with Jelena, whispering nasty things about Ana? Or do he and Ana exchange bitchy text messages about Jelena? Or, hell, does he play both sides?

*

...or he could be totally uninterested. That is always an option too.

*

Speaking of the Djoker, I was really hoping that Paul-Henri Mathieu could give him more of a run for it, but I suppose it was not to be. I haven't been very impressed with Paulo this year, to tell the truth. He used to be one of my personal Kohlschreibers - one of the players that I think they're better than they actually are. But after that match against Rafa (it was Rafa, wasn't it?) at the Australian Open this year, Paulo has had a bit of a fall from grace in my eyes. I could be wrong, but he hasn't had the greatest of years this year... though hey, round of sixteen at Roland Garros isn't bad.

*

Djokovic was solid as usual - a good performance, I must concede, even though we all know how much I don't like him. One of the Radio Roland Garros commentators asked a very interesting question, though - how much further has Novak Djokovic got to improve? How much better can he get? Or is this it for Djokovic?

*

Djokovic doesn't really have a major weapon - in comparison to say, Federer, who is excellent in all aspects of the game but has that magical forehand that it is totally destructive when he is on song. Djokovic is equally solid off both wings - perhaps a tiny bit more off the backhand? He has a good serve, though I suppose he could get better. (He does, however, have the ability to serve excellently on big points, which is very important.) The only area I can really see that needs work is his volleys and maybe he could improve round the net. He has remarkable touch on his dropshots and, on the whole, a top-notch all court game.

*

So where is there for Djokovic to go?

*

To be fair, you could say the same thing about my beloved Federer as well. Roger is brilliant at EVERYTHING. The thing is, though, I can always see Federer adding things to his game. The forehand dropshot that has come out this season, for sure. And Federer is, quite simply, a genius. Djokovic is very, very good - good enough to take Federer out a time or two, like at the Australian Open in 2008 - but I would hesitate to put Djokovic in the same category. This is not to denigrate Djokovic as a player, because even though I think he's an arrogant little tosspot, I can't deny that he's a fabulous player. But Federer is this endless well of potential. He is capable of tennis so astonishing that, as a commentator declared during the Ancic match, it should be made illegal. Djokovic has got game, sure, and he's got drive, and he's got talent, but I don't know how much better he can get.

*

It's going to be interesting to see how being #3 for so long - nearly a year now - affects him mentally. He rocketed up the rankings - I remember Federer playing him in the first round of a tournament in 2006 when he had come through as a qualifer. He came up and up and up and - stopped. Because at the top of the game is Roger, and standing behind the throne is Rafa, and it will take a HELL of a player to get past those two.

*

The Djoker has come close. The semi final between him and Rafa in Hamburg determined who would go into Roland Garros ranked #2. Who came out on top? Rafa. We seem set to see another Nadal/Djokovic semi here at the French, and although Djokovic is good, I don't think you can bet against Rafa, not here, not the way he's playing. Federer could challenge him. You can never, ever count Federer out. You can't count Djokovic out either, but I would be totally stunned if Novak beat Rafa here, in Rafa's playground. Rafa is #2. Djokovic is #3. And it's that way for a reason.

*

If Djokovic is to overtake Rafa in the rankings, it will have to be in the second half of the year, where traditionally Rafa has played poorly. But the pressure, for once, will be on Novak. Djokovic has been #3 for nearly a year now, and so he's coming up to the point where he'll have to defend the points that got him there. How will that pressure effect him? Rafa, on the other hand, provided he defends most of his points at Wimbledon, stands to gain a lot if he plays well. And how is Djokovic going to cope with having these two players in front of him that it is so, so difficult - if not impossible - to pass? Surely that's going to have an impact on him mentally.

*

I didn't really mean to digress into a rant on Djokovic there and I'm sure everyone who reads this is tired of me beating the Roger And Rafa Are Better drum over and over again! But I think we're really coming up to the make-or-break point for Novak. His second half of the season last year was excellent. That was when he really cemented himself as #3 and put distance between him and the Davydenkos and the Ferrers and the Nalbandians. But how is going to cope with defending his points? That is going to be a real test of nerve and toughness. He's totally capable of dealing with it - no one can deny that - but being capable of it and dealing with it are two different issues.

*

I was totally right with my bottom half quarter final predictions for the men - we're going to see Djokovic/Gulbis and Nadal/Almagro. So I guess I do know my men's tennis after all! I don't think you can go past Nadal and Djokovic for the semi finals, but I think both matches will be interesting. Nadal will beat Almagro - I make that one 99% sure - but I think Almagro will be significantly more trouble for him than his last opponents. Almagro is an excellent claycourt player - he won Acapulco and Costa do Sauipe this year, as well as making the final in Valencia, which are all clay tournaments. And it'll also be interesting to see how Rafa adjusts to playing a right-handed player, after having played four lefties in a row! That must have been unusal for him!

*

But I don't think there's any way Rafa will lose. He might lose a set, but probably not even that if he keeps playing at the level that he is. Djokovic, on the other hand, could conceivably be upset, in my book. Gulbis is an unknown quantity. He and Djokovic have never played before. And, as I wrote about a couple of days back, Ernests Gulbis has got game, big time. Give him a couple of years, and he is going to be absolutely fabulous. I would love to see him take out Djokovic. (I mean, I would love to see anybody take out Djokovic, but it would be great to see one of the guys I've earmarked as a player of the future do it, because then I'd feel really smart!) Unfortunately, I still have to put my money on Djokovic here, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Gulbis take a set off him at least. So Nadal/Djokovic is my semi final pick here, but I would love, love, LOVE to be wrong!

*

But we have another day of round of sixteen matches ahead of us before we begin worrying about who is going to be playing in the semis! To revise my picks from yesterday, I think we're going to see Federer/Gonzalez and Ferrer/Monfils. The one I have the most doubt about is Gonzalez - Stepanek has been playing very well. Still, I think Gonzo'll get him. On the women's, I am (semi-controversially) Safina/Dementieva and Azarenka/Kvitova. I fully concede that I am likely to be wrong in all four of these. Safina would be pulling a huge upset, as would Azarenka. I'm considering changing my pick in the Kvitova/Kanepi match to Kanepi after learning last night (while hunting for answers for the Radio Roland Garros quiz, which I am totally winning, by the way!) that Kanepi won junior Roland Garros back in the day, but I'm going to stick to my guns and say Kvitova anyway. For no real reason.

*

And so now we are officially into the second week of Roland Garros - where the going gets tough and the tough send the rest going.

*

...I apologise completely for that abuse of cliche.

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #8

*

*

Men's Draw

*

Rafael Nadal def. Fernando Verdasco, 6-1 6-0 6-2

Novak Djokovic def. Paul-Henri Mathieu, 6-4 6-3 6-4

Nicolas Almagro def. Jeremy Chardy, 7-6 (7-0) 7-6 (9-7) 7-5

Ernests Gulbis def. Michael Llodra, 6-4 7-6 (7-4) 6-3

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Ana Ivanovic def. Petra Cetkovska, 6-0 6-0

Jelena Jankovic def. Agnieszka Radwanska, 6-3 7-6 (7-3)

Carla Suarez Navarro def. Flavia Pennetta, 6-3 6-2

Patty Schnyder def. Katerina Srebotnik, 6-2 6-4

Outwit, Outplay, Outlast

There's something about five set tennis that is just so much... better. Maybe that's why I find men's tennis so much more compelling than the women's tennis - though I suppose this holds true for me all year round and not just during the Slams. I heard Federer say once that he prefers five set tennis because the better player nearly always wins - make a couple of mistakes in a three set match and suddenly you can be a set and a break down. Over five, the struggle is more prolonged, titanic.

*

I always find it interesting to look at matches that would have been different if they'd been three sets. The Federer/Tipsarevic match at the Australian Open that had me weeding my garden in fury, for example. If that had been a three set match, Tipsarevic would have won, two sets to one. There was a match I remember matching years ago between Hewitt and Moya that would have been the same story. (Actually, I can't even tell you what tournament that match was in. I think I might have been twelve. But I remember it ridiculously clearly.) And several of the matches today would have been totally different stories if they'd been played over three sets.

*

Let's start with Wawrinka/Gonzalez. This was an awesome match, and Wawrinka totally owned Gonzalez in the first two sets. We're not talking mild ownage here. Wawrinka laid the two-hoof beatdown on Gonzalez. And come the third? Gonzalez wakes up, we see some more shotmaking, and boom! five sets! And who wins? Gonzalez. But if this had been your standard three set match, Wawrinka would have won in straight sets.

*

There wasn't too much separating these guys. I would venture to say that Wawrinka is the more talented player, though Gonzalez is maybe better on the clay. That were pretty evenly matched. But over the gladiatorial five set match, Gonzalez came out the winner. This is not the Gonzalez we saw at the Australian Open in 2007, who destroyed Tommy Haas and pummelled Rafael Nadal. Gonzalez is not out of form, but he is not in that blistering form he was then either. This was one of those long, grinding matches that are all about endurance and willpower. If nothing else, Gonzalez proved that he's got fight - though I was sad he had to prove it at the expense of Stan the Man.

*

Let's look at another two-sets-down comeback. Wasn't it a great effort for Ivan Ljubicic to take down Nikolay Davydenko? If I were to generalise between this match and the Wawrinka/Gonzalez match, I'd say that the Gonzalez match was more about shotmaking, whereas this one was really about the grind. Ivan and Kolya are two long-time veterans of the tour. They have very different styles - Ivan is a big guy, with that huge serve of his, and Kolya is little and quick, with that bizarre two handed volley that makes him look like he's charging at the other player with an axe. They're pretty close over their careers, not a lot splitting them - Kolya has been more successful overall, I would say, but Ivan leads their head to head 4-3 now... and who can forget how he basically won the Davis Cup singlehandedly for Croatia a few years back?

*

...so I got a bit distracted from the actual match there. Back to it. I don't think there is anything so gutsy as coming back from two sets to love down. Ljubicic has been sliding down the rankings of late - he's at about #30 now, I think, when he used to be #3 - and there's been talk that he's coming up to retirement and that he'll maybe focus on coaching and captaining Davis Cup and stuff like that. But, in my humble opinion, a man that can come back from two sets to love down to Nikolay Davydenko, who is #4 in the world with good reason, is nowhere near retirement. I would love to see Ivan make a run to the quarters or the semis.

*

Moving on to another titanic five set struggle, what a great match between David Ferrer and Lleyton Hewitt! That's another match that would have had a different result had it been best of three - Hewitt would have won in three. I thought Ferrer was going to destroy Hewitt, given that he demolished Fabrice Santoro and that Hewitt hasn't played on clay at all this year until Roland Garros. But it was a great match. I'm not a Lleyton fan... which you might have realised, if you've read this blog... but I admire the attitude he takes. He never gives up, never surrenders. Novak Djokovic, he of the continual retirements, could learn a lot from the way Hewitt approaches tennis. Sometimes I think Hewitt takes it too far, as he deliberately tries to make an enemy of the person at the other side of the net, but I admire the way that he never tanks, that 'it ain't over till it's over' attitude.

*

One thing about this match that puzzled me: the commentators on Radio Roland Garros were talking like Ferrer is a claycourter. Ferrer grew up on clay, sure, and he's had some great results on it, particularly this year, reaching the final of Barcelona and winning Valencia, but I don't know if that necessarily makes him a claycourter. Looking at his career, I'd contest that Ferrer has better results on hard courts than on clay. I think there's a tendency for people - even well educated tennis folks like the Radio Roland Garros team, who certainly know much more about tennis than me! - to put people under the claycourt label just because they're Spanish or Argentinian or whatever. David Nalbandian is another example of this. I've heard him referred to as a claycourter a few times this weeks, and although he has had good results on clay (he reached the semis here a few years ago) I don't think there's any doubt that the place Nalbandian really excels is on indoor synthetic courts.

*

The other huge five set struggle that went on yesterday was the Monfils/Melzer match. To tell the truth, I was very annoyed that this match went to five sets, as it meant that the Federer match - which was, as always, the one I was hanging out for - started after two am in Australia, and I fell asleep during it. Like the previous matches I've discussed, Melzer would have won this match had it been best of three, but Monfils came out on top. Monfils is one of those perpetually underwhelming players, in my mind. He has so much talent and promise - anyone remember when he won three of the four junior Slams a few years back? - but he's just injured ALL THE TIME. Given his tendency to do the splits Kim Clijsters style all the time, it's not really surprising.

*

I don't have a lot to say about this match, as I was half asleep through most of it, but it'll be interesting to see what Monfils can do. He's never been really deep into the second week of a Slam - could it be this time for Gael? Heaven knows the French need something - though they've actually done pretty well on the men's side, considering Gasquet and Tsonga and Grosjean are all out. Benneteau, Monfils, Chardy, Llodra and Mathieu are all through to the round of sixteen, and that's not half bad at all. The Spanish have four, and then there's a mishmash of other European countries represented, with Gonzalez and Ginepri the only representatives from outside the continent. Doesn't that say a lot about the profile of claycourt tennis outside of Europe? (Though I am being very unfair to South America there.)

*

So, I love five set tennis. Big love. I enjoyed every minute of those big matches, especially the Hewitt/Ferrer encounter. But my favourite match of the day was the Federer match by far... even though I was asleep through a lot of it. Federer played sweetly, and even though Ancic is a tough opponent, there was never any doubt that my man Roger was going to win. The thing that has been letting him down since his bout of glandular fever has been his serve, and he served beautifully today - 63% first serves in, winning 80% of the time when they went in. He won ninety points to Ancic's fifty-six. I think that counts as a destruction. And there isn't anything I like better than a straight sets Roger match when he goes all destructo. The semi final of the Australian Open in 2007 when he demolished Andy Roddick might be my favourite match of all time.

*

...I have stopped gushing about Federer now.

*

I promised yesterday that I'd deliver quarter final picks, and I do not lie. Yesterday, I picked Nadal/Almagro and Djokovic/Gulbis for the bottom half of the draw. I'm going to follow that up with Federer/Gonzalez and Ferrer/Monfils. Federer will crush Benneteau if he keeps playing the way he's playing (though Benneteau did beat Soderling, who is no slouch by any means... still, Roger will win easily, methinks.) I'm not quite sure how Robby Ginepri got to the round of sixteen, but I think his time is up - I don't think he'll make it past Gonzo. Stepanek is a dangerous player, but I think Ferrer is better over five. And much as I would like to see Ljubicic win - and he is seeded, while Gael is not - my gut is going Monfils on this one.

*

For the women (previously unmentioned today - what a shock) I picked Ivanovic/Schnyder and Jankovic/Pennetta from the bottom half of the draw. Pretty uncontroversial there - but I am going to be much more controversial for the top half. I'm saying Safina/Dementieva and Azarenka/Kvitova. Dinara Safina, as discussed yesterday, is in form, and Sharapova has been unconvincing so far. Dementieva/Zvonareva will be interesting, but I think Elena will win... maybe in a tight match, though. Svetlana Kuznetsova has been playing awesomely, but so has Victoria Azarenka... and I just have a feeling on that one. I don't much about Kvitova and Kanepi, but I'm saying Kvitova purely on the basis that she took out Szavay, who I think is going to do big stuff in the future.

*

How many can Jodi get right? I guess we'll soon see!

*

One last thing in this absurdly long ramble - I'm going to keep a bit of an eye on the juniors draws as well. Previous winners of the the Junior Roland Garros include Gael Monfils, Stan Wawrinka, Richard Gasquet and Marin Cilic, so it'll be interesting to see what the kids are doing in a few years. I've especially got my eye on top boys seed Bernard Tomic, who won the junior Australian Open this year despite the fact he's only fifteen - if he hasn't peaked too early, Tomic could be the next big thing Down Under!

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day #7

*

Men's Draw

*

Roger Federer def. Mario Ancic, 6-3 6-4 6-2

Gael Monfils def. Jurgen Melzer, 4-6 7-5 4-6 6-0 6-2

Julien Benneteau def. Robin Soderling, 1-6 7-6 (8-6) 6-0 6-1

David Ferrer def. Lleyton Hewitt, 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-3 6-4

Robby Ginepri def. Florent Serra, 6-4 6-4 6-4

Ivan Ljubicic def. Nikolay Davydenko, 4-6 2-6 6-3 6-2 6-4

Fernando Gonzalez def. Stanislas Wawrinka, 5-7 2-6 6-4 6-4 6-4

Radek Stepanek def. Tommy Robredo, 6-3 6-2 6-1

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Maria Sharapova def. Karin Knapp, 7-6 (7-4) 6-0

Svetlana Kuznetsova def. Nadia Petrova, 6-2 6-1

Elena Dementieva def. Olga Govortsova, 6-0 6-4

Victoria Azarenka def. Francesca Schiavone, 6-1 6-1

Dinara Safina def. Jie Zheng, 6-2 7-5

Petra Kvitova def. Agnes Szavay, 7-6 (7-5) 4-6 6-2

Jelena Jankovic def. Dominika Cibulkova, 7-5 6-3

Vera Zvonareva def. Aleksandra Wozniak, 6-2 6-2

Kaia Kanepi def. Anabel Medina Garrigues, 6-1 6-7 (5-7) 7-5