by Pete Bodo
PARIS—It might have been taken as an omen, the way that predicted deluge held off, leaving Court Philippe Chatrier bathed in rich sunlight as the French Open men's final got underway this afternoon, with the brass buttons glistening on jackets of the marching band members, and the court lit up and gone the color of buckskin.
And for a few brief and shining moments there, it appeared that it might happen—really happen. Even the most lugubrious and pessimistic of Roger Federer fans had reason to think that this time it might be different between their high-flying idol, severely kitted-out to look like a human Swiss flag, and the man who has tormented him on this same court so often in the past, Rafael Nadal.
Sure, Nadal owns Federer on clay, and had prevailed all four times they played in this storied old stadium, the grandest cathedral in the kingdom of European tennis. Three of those Roland Garros meetings between Federer and Nadal were finals that helped cement Nadal's status as a historic rival to the greatest of all clay-court players, Bjorn Borg. But this year it might be different, some felt. Didn't Novak Djokovic become the first man to batter through the remarkable clay-court defenses of Nadal—and twice in recent weeks, no less? Didn't Nadal himself sound a little world weary? A bit. . . sad? A trifle disillusioned through a good portion of this fortnight, the way a child might feel when he learns that the school year will start a week early this year?
But above all, this hope was staked on the basis of that performance Federer put in on that clammy and damp evening two days ago. He knocked Djokovic back on his can where the Serb sat blinking, his 43-match winning streak lying in shards all about him. That was the Federer of yore, the quiet, even-tempered if sometimes tetchy and consumately deadly man whose forehand had the sting of an asp and whose serve had the kick of a mule. Even those who thought he had never gone could not suppress the thought: Maybe he's back!
And if he could go where no man, including Nadal, had gone this year—taking down Djokovic—what might prevent him from finally besting his career rival, whose pillars that selfsame Djokovic so recently had shaken to their very foundations? Why not? Why couldn't that happen? A great player makes great statements; Federer is the greatest player, so it's his prerogative to make the greatest of all statements; back-to-back wins over Djokovic and Nadal to take his second French Open title. Hope springs eternal . . .but it rarely lasts that long.
Yet in the early part of the match it seemed possible if not exactly likely that Federer was about to finish what he started on Friday, about to paint the rest of his masterpiece. He led, 3-0 and 5-2, and Rafa appeared to be on the run.
But at 5-2, Nadal held and Federer managed to get only one first serve into the box out of the six he served in the next game, in which he was broken. "Yeah, I mean, that's how it goes," Federer said after he lost the final, 7-5, 7-6 (3), 5-7, 6-1. "Rafa is tough. I definitely thought that I got maybe a touch unlucky there and he got a touch lucky. There was a lot of close calls with the net, like right close to the lines plays and so forth. So it was a tough moment. I think that was one of my bigger chances of the match. And then going to maybe a potential rain delay, just having won a set in the bag is obviously a good thing to have."
Hmmmm. That's one way to look at it.
But another way would be to dwell upon the way Nadal charged back to take that set, and immediately broke Federer in the second. The shift of moment was startling, and it pointed toward a few immutable laws that many of us forgot as we tried to grasp those golden moments and find reason to hope in all the hubub about Djokovic, the resurgence of Federer, and the plight of the allegedly emotionally bruised Nadal.
Immutable law No. 1: No matter what else has happened in tennis, one thing has not changed. The Nadal forehand to Federer backhand is, all things being equal, a battle that Federer cannot win with any consistency. It isn't just the evidence that was presented to our eyes again today; it's also the evidence presented indirectly by Djokovic during his brilliant streak, and those two wins over Nadal (and, let's not forget, he was 3-0 against Federer before Friday).
Federer's backhand can't consistently hurt Nadal; not on clay. Federer had almost twice as many unforced errors as Nadal (56 to 27), and the majority of them poured off the backhand face of his racket. At times I had to ask myself if Federer was wondering, What would Novak do?
Immutable law No. 2: It's difficult to sustain the degree of excellence required to beat Nadal when you're playing him at Roland Garros. This brings us right back to the play-by-play details. While many nice things were said about this match, and will continue to be said, the harsh realities aren't quite as kind. Once Federer surrendered that 5-2 first set lead, he never really led until he managed to pull out the third set. His tennis was admittedly brilliant, but who's going to come back to beat Nadal on clay from two sets down?
Granted, the second set had many tense moments. After falling behind by love-40 and gifting Nadal with a break in the very first game, Federer soon hit the first of the two stretches of outstanding tennis he would produce. It looked as if he blasted his way back into the match because he'd more or less succumbed to frustration and decided, What the hail, I may as well let it rip. It's presumptuous to read someone's mind that way, but perhaps it wasn't mere coincidence that one moment Federer was shrugging and shaking his head, speaking horrible body language, and the next he was firing winners left and right. No matter, Nadal weathered the storm and was much better prepared to compete in the tiebreaker. He won it going away, 7-3.
Fedrerer went deep into the well of gorgeous again in the third set, which Nadal led by 4-2—two games from a straight-sets triumph. Credit Federer with lifting his game to a wonderful new level, a level that would have opened the gates to a win on this day against anyone but Nadal—or even him, if Federer could only sustain it. But he couldn't do it on this second occasion, either. Although he extended the match by winning the third set 7-5, Nadal soon found a higher gear that Federer couldn't match. Nadal dug himself a hole in the opening game of the fourth set, sinking to love-40, but he resisted falling into it, saving the game. In the very next game, Federer dug a comparable hole and dropped into it for good when he made a forehand approach error off Nadal's service return. It was never close after that. "That was a big turning point," Nadal said later. "In my opinion Roger played a good match."
He added, "Today I think he did well. He was a little bit unlucky at the first set, and after that, he came back fantastically well in the second. In the third I had 4-2, but seriously, I think he played very, very good from that moment to the beginning of the fourth. So when Roger plays like this, the opponent has nothing to do sometimes. I just waited my moment, tried to be there all the time, tried to put him in not easy situations all the time."
Roger described the clay-court dynamic between them slightly differently, in words that I imagine he might want to take back if they were read back to him: "Obviously I'm the one that's playing with smaller margins, so obviously I'm always going to go through a bit more up and downs; whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time. So it's always me who's going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be. If I play well, I will most likely win in the score or beat him; if I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins."
We know that's sour grapes, but we also know it can't be that easy for a player of Federer's caliber to go out to accept what has by now been established as the inevitable, one-sided beating at Roland Garros. What's the man to do, quit playing the tournament entirely as long as Nadal is active?
And somehow, this match was reflective of the champion's entire experience in Paris; it was marked by soaring highs and gutteral lows. It was alternately brilliant and stinky, ragged at the edges and holey in the middle. But it was still a very satisfying win for Nadal, and he equalled the record of the only other man in the conversation about the greatest clay-court player in tennis history, Borg. He was conspuciously absent today, much like he was that day at Roland Garros in 1982 when unseeded Mats Wilander became, after Borg, the second Swede in the Open era to win a major title.
Cherishing the moment, Nadal reflected: "Sometimes when you fight a lot to win, when you try your best in every moment to change the situation, it makes the title more special. For example, in 2008 I think I played better than ever, but I finished the tournament and, you know, I didn't feel that I won Roland Garros because I won in three sets. Not that difficult fourth round, quarterfinals, semifinals, with not many tough moments. Playing fantastic tennis, (and) every tournament is very special. But when you come back after not easy situation, that makes the tournaments and the victories more special for sure."
A few times today, Roger Federer looked like he might have been the one who would ultimately say those words. He caught lightning in a bottle at Roland Garros this year, but at the end taking down Nadal was just too much to ask. It always has been at Roland Garros, there's no point trying to tap dance around it, not even if you're Federer. One point before the anti-climactic end of this match, the sun finally broke through, the court began to glow, and you could almost think anything was still possible.
Almost.