Nadal’s Triple Crown
Posted by Dan Martin on 06.10.2007
Rafael Nadal and Justine Henin Each Won Their 3rd Consecutive French Open Titles. Nadal is a clay court thoroughbred who shows no signs of slowing down.
The French Open ended the same way it did over the past three years – Rafael Nadal and Justine Henin held the singles trophies. That does not mean this event was a carbon copy of 2006. Three new faces from Serbia showed that tennis has a new nation to watch. Novak Djokovic strikes me as a solid top 5 player in the world who is only rising. Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic have to figure out the Henin riddle, but each can add to the game. Finally, Nadal seems to have a real shot at claiming #1 later this year at the same time as Federer's tactics seem more complete vs. Rafa. All in all, this was a good two weeks for tennis.
Women's Tournament
Justine Henin has claimed her 4th French Open title and 6th Grand Slam title. She seems to be a clear #1 with successive straight set wins over Serena Williams, Jankovic and Ivanovic. Henin is not the warmest person in tennis history. Her 2003 run-in with Serena Williams and 2006 default in the Australian Open final have left her with a low popularity. However, her talent is undeniable, and she may yet take over the women's game in 2007. At a minimum, Henin playing well added to a resurgent Serena Williams, two Serbian youths and a rebounding Maria Sharapova ought to make the rest of 2007 more interesting than the first six months of women's tennis this year. Williams, Sharapova and Henin all head into Wimbledon with something to prove. My early thought is Henin will win her first Wimbledon title in 4 weeks. Such a triumph would complete the career Grand Slam for Henin.
Men's Final
Last year, Roger Federer sprinted through a 6-1 first set against a tight Nadal only to play into Nadal's hands over the next three sets. This year Roger's strategy was much more inventive and sound. Federer's execution failed him in a few key games, but these failures had a lot to do with Nadal (see more below). Federer took better advantage of court positioning by hitting to Nadal's forehand if Nadal was waiting in the backhand corner. Federer's serve also yanked Nadal off the court out wide on the deuce court. Federer's backhand was more capable than a year ago. Roger also won 21 of 34 net approaches for a 62% winning percentage at net.
To tell the story bluntly, Federer played better than in 2006, but so too did Nadal. Rafa put 77% of his first serves in play, hustled, hit huge shots under pressure and played tennis like a starving wolverine. Nadal is as determined as the Terminator was at chasing Sarah Connor. He makes few errors while ripping huge shots. Federer won a key game at 2-3 in the second set by crushing a forehand as hard as he could and then hitting a stab volley on the next point. Federer rode that momentum to a second set win (the only set Nadal dropped over 2 weeks). The thing is it is unlikely for anyone to crush massive ground strokes and hit stab volleys often enough to win. Nadal gave nothing cheap away and played with efficient brutality.
Federer and History
Federer's loss led to more speculation about his place in history. Federer set two more all time records this week: most consecutive sets won in Grand Slam play (36) and most consecutive Grand Slam finals (8). Both impressive marks, but losing in the French Open for the third year in a row to Nadal has to hurt. Consider that Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Stephan Edberg, Boris Becker and Pete Sampras cumulatively reached two French Open finals with no championships to their names. Federer has equaled that group by becoming a two time runner-up at the French Open. That may put into perspective how hard it is to win in Paris, but it does not take the sting out of losing. How often does a player have the chance to win four consecutive Grand Slams? Sampras had the chance in 1994 when he lost to Jim Courier in the French Open quarterfinals. Federer has been one match away on two occasions. Going 54-2 over the previous 8 Grand Slam events is record setting, but those two losses prevented a career slam and 52 week slam for Federer. If he equals Bjorn Borg's 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles, Federer will exercise some of the demons of missed historical opportunities. Still, this one hurts.
Nadal on Clay
I am too young to recall Borg's clay court prowess. I loved Gustavo "Guga" Kuerten's game when he won 3 French Open titles (1997, 2000 and 2001). Nadal is the best clay court champion I have ever seen. That is not easy for me to say because I admired Kuerten's game so much. I like Nadal as well. It was very fitting to see Kuerten present the trophy to Nadal. Given that Guga beat Federer at the 2004 French Open, Federer had to share the stage with the two players he has lost to in Paris over the past four years. Those two players also hold a combined 6 French Open titles. I got the feeling Federer wished he could tie two of them up and make Nadal and Kuerten watch him pave over the clay courts of Roland Garros with a fast hard court surface. Guga in his prime vs. Rafa would be interesting, but Nadal would likely have an edge even in that series.
Nadal wins on clay because he puts his opposition into a tough spot. To beat Nadal on clay, someone only needs to keep the heavy top spin shots of Nadal that land deep in the court from pushing one behind the baseline, play aggressive tennis and not make many errors. Clay does not lend itself to aggressive tennis. Net approaches often fail due to the extra time the dirt allows for the approach shot to sit up and the passing shot to be lined up. Clay accepts topspin nicely and leads to high bounces. This tends to push people backwards. Finally, aggressive play on clay is difficult because a player often has to hit extra balls when in command of a point. These extra shots lead to more opportunities for errors. So, the three things one has to do to beat Nadal are difficult to accomplish. Federer held his ground by not being pushed back. Federer played aggressively. Federer made a lot of errors. If one takes more chances, it is normal for errors to pile up. Thus, beating Nadal on clay is a catch-22. Nadal's three French Open titles and six clay court Masters Series titles over the past three years speak of how great he is.
A Look at My Picks
On the women's side, I did get the Jankovic - Henin semifinal right. I made the mistake of picking with my heart and going with Jankovic for the title. She has never beaten Henin, and until she does, it is a bad bet to expect Jankovic to beat Henin. I also made the mistake of expecting Mauresmo to play well in Paris. She never has and likely never will.
On the men's side, I said that Nadal was still the favorite on clay after his loss in Hamburg to Federer. A week later I picked Federer to beat Nadal in the French Open final. Why? The draw seemed to be harder for Nadal. Juan Martin del Porto was a tough first round opponent. Lleyton Hewitt was playing great tennis. Carlos Moya also looked to be in form. Finally, Novak Djokovic has the goods to challenge anyone. I thought Federer had an easier path to the final. I figured Nadal would be in the final, but that Hewitt, Moya and Djokovic would have taken some sets off of Rafa and have softened Nadal up with body blows. Instead, Nadal dismantled all three en route to the final. As stated above, I think Federer's strategy was better this year, but Nadal was also leg weary in Hamburg. When Nadal crushed Hewitt, I knew my pick might be off. Hewitt was playing great and had pushed Nadal hard at the 2006 French Open and at the 2007 Hamburg tournament on clay. With easy wins, Nadal claimed to be playing better in 2007 than 2006, and he was right. Still, I got Federer, Djokovic and Nadal right through the semifinals.
