After all of that, we end with: Federer-Nadal. It makes two weeks of rain delays, silly scheduling, and botched broadcasts worthwhile. This could be the Slam final we’ve been waiting for from these guys. They’ve played one classic match (Rome 2006) and four very good-to-great ones (Key Biscayne 2005 and Dubai, Monte Carlo, and Shanghai 2006), but their tussles at the majors have never quite gotten off the ground.
Last year’s Wimbledon final may have been the closest to achieving elevation, as Nadal served for the second set and won the third in a tiebreaker before going down in four. This year Nadal has looked more comfortable on grass. He’s come through what may have been the toughest possible draw for him, beating three of his prime rivals, Youzhny, Berdych, and Djokovic. Along the way he seems to have found a grass-court version of his game, one where he plays closer to the baseline, uses his backhand as a weapon, shortens the swing on his forehand (it seems the technique refinements he’s made with that shot over the past year have helped on grass), and finishes points with his slashing, angled volleys. His serve is better, too. At this moment, Nadal must feel like he’s clearly the second-best player in the world, and not just the best on clay. That confidence will help Sunday.
Federer has kept doing what he’s always done on grass, which is . . . actually, I’m not sure what he does that makes all his matches so routine. He serves well and takes over the middle of the court with his forehand. But he’s playing a sort of backcourt version of the old Sampras grass game—take care of your serve and then piece together four points any way you can to get one break per set. Today, Gasquet was serving at 5-6, 30-15. Federer wasn’t playing well and it looked like the set was heading to a tiebreaker. Federer floated a return that both players thought was going long. It dropped on the line and all Gasquet could do was shovel the ball over the net, short. Federer pounced on it and won the point. Suddenly, it was 30-30, Gasquet tightened up, and a couple points later Federer had the first set in his pocket. That’s the dual challenge for anyone playing the world No. 1—because he serves so well, you must be utterly vigilant about not giving away anything on your own serve, even when he appears to be coasting and not into it; then, when you do give something away, you have to calm the extra nerves that naturally come with playing Federer, that sense of “uh, oh, here we go.” Nadal, having beaten Federer so many times, will be somewhat immune from those feelings.
Last year this match was decided very simply: Federer took over the middle of the court, a place Nadal owns on clay. Where the rallies go from Nadal’s forehand to Fed’s backhand on dirt, on grass they went from Federer’s forehand to Nadal’s backhand much more often. It was a rudimentary change, but it made the difference. I’d look for Federer to do what it takes to control points with his forehand. He had success serving wide to Nadal’s backhand last year, and Federer’s own return is better on grass, where the ball stays lower. If he watched any of the Djokovic-Nadal match today, Federer may have noticed that Djokovic had success early firing his forehand straight into Nadal’s forehand corner; it opened up his backhand and got him scrambling. The key for Federer may be first serves; they’re more effective on grass, especially against Nadal, who hacks at his backhand return on first serves, but can take control of a point if he gets a look at a second ball.
From a mental standpoint, Federer typically relaxes and begins to cruise when he wins a set. Against Nadal, he’ll need to win two before that happens. It’s strange to say for a guy who has won four straight Wimbledons, but if Federer gets behind early, he must avoid any sign of the mope he usually goes into against Nadal. The Spaniard will get nervous if he gets anywhere near his goal.
What does Nadal need to do? The same as Federer: control the middle of the court. You know how they say a football game is won in the yard between the offensive line and the defensive line? This match will be won in the two yards surrounding the center hash mark at the baseline. Whoever is hitting forehands from there will be winning. For Nadal to do that, he also needs a high serve percentage. He’s mixed his serve location up more at this tournament than he has in the past—the flat one up the middle on the ad side is suddenly a weapon. He’ll need as many freebies as he can get against Federer, who is the best in the world at not handing them out. Nadal has also been successful at net these two weeks. For a baseliner, he has no fear of the volley, attacking the ball and finding the most severe angle possible. He could throw Federer off by getting up there a few times early in the match.
But I don’t expect surprises Sunday. These guys have done pretty well with their games as they are (and we know Federer likes to stick with what he’s got). I do expect a good match, maybe a great match. If it is close, it may come down to how Nadal approaches it. One reason I think he lost last year was that he didn’t need to win—it would have been a bonus. Nadal’s edge over his opponents is that fundamental desire to win every point; without it, he’s vulnerable to self-doubt like the rest of us. Does Nadal need to win this? He should—Wimbledon is his great goal, and who knows when he’ll be back in the final—and I think he will. But I think Federer will need it more. To lose this match would be far worse than losing the French Open final; it would mean that Roger Federer could no longer think of himself as the undisputed No. 1 tennis player in the world. That’s not something he’s going to let happen.
Federer in five: 6-4, 6-7, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4