Live Scores  |  TV Schedule  |  Pro Schedule  |  Rankings  |  Players  |  Stats  |  Message Boards  |  Newsletter  |  Webmail  |  Subscribe  |  Store
TENNIS.com - Concrete Elbow by Steve Tignor
   Features
   Backcourt  
   Your Game
   Gear
   College Tennis  NEW!
   Community
   Travel
   Classifieds
TENNIS.com Blogs
   TennisWorld
   Concrete Elbow
   Champions' Perspective
   Backcourt: Framed
   Ready, Set, Goal: Kellie
   Ready, Set, Goal: Joe
   ATP Fantasy Blog
  
  
  
  
  
  
TENNIS Magazine
   Gift Subscription
   Purchase Back Issues
   Current Issue
   Past Issues
   Customer Care
« IW: Dunzo CE 10: Keys to the Key »
KB: Biscayne Brackets
Posted 03/26/2008 @ 12 :22 PM

SerenaThe pro-tennis schedule is just one illogical quirk after another. We start with a Slam, go six weeks with nothing, then play two identical big events over the course of three weeks. Brad Gilbert—remember him?—has said that he thinks winning the Indian Wells-Key Biscayne double is more difficult than winning a major, and it hasn’t been done all that often (with the predictable exception of Roger Federer, who did it twice in a row in 2005-’06). As individual tournaments, these are two of the very best on the calendar and prove that two genders are better than one. But for players and TV viewers, there’s a sameness to them that robs each of some of its status and uniqueness. Pete Bodo has suggested in the past that Key Biscayne become a Har-Tru tournament. This would give it a Pan American flavor and differentiate it from Indian Wells, while utilizing a recognizably U.S.-based surface (which, since the demise of the U.S. summer clay circuit, isn’t used for any big men’s tournaments these days). Not a bad idea, in my opinion.

That’s obviously not what we’re dealing with in 2008. What we are dealing are slow hard courts, high humidity, and draws that look like these. The men’s side is packed again, and the women’s, despite Maria Sharapova’s withdrawal, is stronger than the one that showed for Indian Wells. There are storylines to follow on both sides, as Novak Djokovic continues his assault on the Federer-Nadal hegemony, while IW winner Ana Ivanovic tries to navigate through a field featuring Justine Henin, the Williams sisters, and Anna Chakvetadze.

The Women
First Quarter
The last time we saw Henin she was beaten by Schiavone in Dubai; before that she had won in Antwerp but gotten waxed in a 6-0 second set by Sharapova in Australia. Now the world No. 1 will try to regain the momentum she had at the end of last season. She doesn’t have the easiest section in which to do it. The third round could bring the hard-working Maria Kirilenko, the fourth Agnes Szavay, and the quarters, as usual, defending champion Serena Williams (can we agree that draw-fixing might be in order here, to keep these two apart a little longer?) To reach Henin, Williams will need to get past Patty Schnyder, who she recently beat in straight sets in Bangalore.
Semifinalist: Serena Williams

Second Quarter
Kuznetsova is the top seed, followed by Venus Williams. Intermittently dangerous names like Radwanska, Peer, and Bartoli are floating between them, but I wouldn’t bet on any of them to put together a long run of excellence. Peer did knock off Kuz in three sets here last year, but she hasn’t been at her best lately. As for Kuz vs. Venus, they’re 3-3 lifetime, with Williams winning their last meeting, at Wimbledon in 2007. She’ll be more rested than the Russian, who just reached the final of IW. That could make a difference by the time they play in the deep humidity of South Florida.
Semifinalist: Venus Williams

Third Quarter
Anna Chakvetadze returns to the tour as the No. 5 seed and has been slotted across from No. 4 Jelena Jankovic. Chakvetadze has a slightly deeper minefield to traverse: Mirza, Schiavone, and Dementieva, compared to Petrova, Knapp, and, um, Safarova (?) for Jankovic. The Russian holds a surprising 6-3 edge over the Serb and should be fresher after skipping IW.
Semifinalist: Anna Chakvetadze

Fourth Quarter
The final section of the women’s draw includes a couple of potentially intriguing match-ups. Ivanovic could face Davenport in the third round, while a semi-sinking Vaidisova is in the same half as a semi-rising Hantuchova, though the Czech would have to get past Zvonareva to make that happen. Ivanovic is on a roll and still hungry, and there’s no reason to think she won’t keep it going at least until the semis.
Semifinalist: Ana Ivanovic

Semis: Serena Williams d. Venus Williams; Chakvetadze d. Ivanovic
Final: S. Williams d. Chakvetadze

Djoko

The Men
First Quarter
Federer comes in looking to regain his form after a few uncharacteristic defeats. He’ll start with the winner of Isner-Monfils, move on to his countryman Stanislas Wawrinka, and then perhaps get the winner of Hewitt-Robredo. The bottom half of this section offers a tantalizing round of 16 possibility: Roddick vs. Tsonga, who had a memorable tussle in Melbourne in 2007. I’ll pick a rested Roddick if that match comes to fruition, but I can’t pick him over Federer, even if Rog is off-form, in the quarters.
Semifinalist: Roger Federer

Second Quarter
Davydenko-Murray and Youzhny-Ferrer are the highest-seeded pairs for the round of 16, and you’re guess is as good as mine as to who makes it out the section. Along the way, Davydenko could be tested by Gulbis or Kohlschreiber; Murray by Ancic in the second round; and Youzhny by Safin, a surging Mardy Fish, or Almagro. Ferrer, who plays well in Key Biscayne but may be ready for a slump (he lost to Taik-Lee in IW), has the easiest draw. He’s play the winner of Tipsarevic-Verdasco in the third round. It’s a solid section and ripe with potential upsets.
Semifinalist: David Ferrer

Third Quarter
Djokovic is obviously the man to beat in this quarter, and I’m not going to pick Andreev, the seed closest to him, to pull any upsets again. The other side is headed by Richard Gasquet, which means it’s up for grabs (Gasquet was a big disappointment against Blake at IW, seemingly going through the motions against a guy he’d never lost to before). The other seeds here are Ferrer, Berdych, and Lopez; the other players of note are Del Potro, Tursunov, Nishikori, and Querrey. But you can’t bet against the the defending champion, Djokovic, right now, even if he will be tired.
Semifinalist: Novak Djokovic

Fourth Quarter
Nadal and Nalbandian are the players to beat at the bottom of the draw. James Blake is the most threatening guy between them, and he’s scheduled to face Nalbandian in the round of 16, while Nadal could get Mathieu. Otherwise, the names of note are Haas (who plays Kiefer first in a clash of the testy Germans), Kuerten (he starts his swansong U.S event against Grosjean), Stepanek, Moya and Ljubicic. Nadal showed some good stuff (coming back to beat Tsonga and Blake) and very bad stuff (his loss to Djokovic) in IW, and I would expect some of the same inconsistency. Haas or Niemenin could be a test early, but there’s no reason to think he won’t at least battle his way to a rematch with Djokovic in the semis.
Semifinalist: Rafael Nadal

Semifinals: Federer d. Ferrer; Djokovic d. Nadal
Final: Djokovic d. Federer

I won’t be heading to Key Biscayne this time, but we’ll have your friends Pete Bodo and Tom Perrotta on site, and I’ll be chiming in on the TV coverage. It’s FSN again, so it may be a bit…erratic. CBS takes over on the final weekend.

For now, fans of Ana Ivanovic can have a question answered by the world's hottest—playing, of course—pro at TENNIS.com. Click here to send one

| | Send to a Friend
Comments

First?

wait a minute steve... picking Djokovic again over Federer even of he WILL BE TIRED? naaa.. haha I'm joking as anything can happen. I agree with most of it, the only difference being I'd take Blake to make the semifinal against Djokovic. He'll beat Nalbandian and will not make the same mistakes against Nadal as he did in IW and of course I say this will be the inflexion point of Federer's season as he will take it the tourney.

something else man, I saw on the Tennis Channel last night they will be showing some matches...

Steve, I might diagree with you. Fed will beat the Djoker in three tight sets. 7-5 6-7 6-4

Blake to defeat Djokovic? You must be joking...

I doubt Federer in this condition can take it from Novak. He must make adjustments in his game... he didn't do this for a long time and as great as Federer is, I still would not expect him to be able to rebound so fast. It's not just Novak, Federer's game deserted him too...

If he starts making adjustments now, maybe in couple of months he gets it... that's not easy as it looks.

Actually I think he must jump Roddick first! Don't forget all streaks come to an end. Now, Andy has a very good chance to beat Fed...

john smith,

Nope. I meant I think Blake will make the semis by beating Nadal but loosing to Djokovic.

Maybe you are right as this could be Federer's turning point year. He could be going from the guy that wins everything to the guy that brings it on and wins the Slams like Steve has said before but I refuse to believe that. I think he is eager to play Djokovic again and take it to him, to proove himself or at least to see where his game is at right now. Djokovic is full on confidence as he is the hottest pla yer in the tour right now but never understimate a champion's heart. Federer has lots of it. He is not only talent but also substance and hardwork so it would not surprise me at all if he beats Djokovic convincingly in the final match.

Right... my bad. I like Blake, on hard courts he is better than Nadal. He has a lot of the firepower but it looks like he doesn't have it in his head. He is consistent but could never manage to get big wins...

I love the breakdown. However I just do not see Novak winning back to back... it is just too tough. I do not think he'll make the final... IF he does, yes he is the favorite.

Yes. I actually think Blake should have beaten Nadal at IW in straight sets. He was a confirmed break up in the first but honestly it might have been Nadal taking so long to play in between points that annoyed him and messed with his rythm, his concentration and his returns...

SwissMaestro,

actually if you look at Roger's game and playing strategy you will notice a long period of stagnation. For last 2 years he has been playing on a "credit" achieved in that dominant 04-06 period, taking maximum approach of poor player's confiendce, they simply didn't believe they could win against him. He commented many times including this year, that his game plan is just to get out and make adjustments on the court.

Now, Djokovic for instance... he never stopped evolving. That makes it difficult for opponents because there is always a new element.

If you don't evolve it's just a matter of time when opponents are going to start reading you game. Once they make it you loose the edge. And that's exactly what happened to Federer with Djokovic. Until Federer accepts this he won't move forward, on contrary the L's will pile up. And if cannot do that, I'm affraid he could have a hard downfall which would seriously compromise his GOAT status... Pete's GS record, and all he achieved. This happened before... just ask Wilander...

That steve even has Federer making the final is satisfying enough, though, this time, I am inclined to disagree with him.

SwissM....so you think Rafa only beat Blake because of time between points?

Now, if Novak manages to win again we might have a new "Federer". I don't claim myself to be fan of nobody, but this kid really has it. I am amazed with the way he handled all this...
He climbed his way with absolutely no steps back at incredibly fast pace. He showed a true champion's hearth, no doubt...

John Smith,

hold on with the Djokovic rise to #1. Let him get to #2 first.

Comparing Federer to Wilander... yeah right, Wilander's serve was a killer!

come on.

Steve,
Agree with your semifinalists except I believe Jelena will win that quarter somehow.
Then, I have Serena facing Ana in the final with Serena repeating KB like she did from 2002-2004.

ATP semifinalists: Federer, Davydenko, Djokovic, Blake. But, I do agree with your finalists and champion. So far in 2008, Novak has been the best player on HC and per ATP site, Novak(43) was only one HC win behind Federer(44) in 2007.

Swiss Maestro,
I am afraid that TC will be showing tape delayed matches but I am hoping that we will see some live action.

I'm liking this Ivanovic...but get the sinking feeling that she's Clistjers II. I've been seeing some pictures of Princess Serena on gossip sites. She is looking mighty, mighty fit. I honestly didn't think her body could get more spectacular. But it has.

Wilander and Federer could, should not be compared. They are definitely not in the same league so I will not even bother talking about that. They are light years apart of each other.

Federer can be compared with Sampras, Laver or Borg but that's about it (until Djokovic wins 11 more slams). I believe his very peak is still to be. It is true however that he will not keep up with the never seen before pace of the last 4 years because as many know, he is not a machine (eventhough at times looked like one) I wonder if we will ever see anyone playing at that level for so long again.

Roger has a thing with players that have given him trouble in the past as he's had them figured out (Hewitt, Nalbandian, Nadal [still in the process]). Maybe it is a slump, I mean he has been due for letdowns at events where he is expected to win, right?

Federer will keep on moving forward when he hires a coach and NOT when he realized anything about Djokovic. Nadal just said it after loosing to Novak in IW: "I don't think he is better than Roger" and to be honest I don't think so either just yet.

Federer is the ultimate evolving player. The very fact that he can adjust his game or startegy in a matter of a couple of games once a match has started speaks for itself. Nadal is an example of a guy that is always willing to evolve but he still has to do so some more. Let's see how much Djokovic has evolved during the clay court season starts. I don't predict huge victories for him (and neither on grass) and to me that is not evolving but being more one-dimensional when most of his success is subjected to hard courts. Nothing against him but I will believe he is the best when he dominated most torunaments convincingly and becomes no.1 and for now these goals are far from being a consistent reality.

Posted by Carrie 03/26/2008 @ 1:53 PM

SwissM....so you think Rafa only beat Blake because of time between points?

------------

No Carrie. I think that when Blake realized Nadal was ready to do ANYTHING (running forever, being out there for as long as it could have taken) his menthal confidence left him. Nadal also beat him with heart and physicality but let's admit it, the kid plays menthal games all the time.

If Federer reaches the finals, he should win it! I don't see anyone who can give him much trouble in the finals except Djoko.

Oh, and, Steve, Djokovic's not beating Federer in the final, because Djokovic's not going to get there. He gets tired and will go down to defeat in an earlier round. He's one terrific player, but uses way more energy to win then Fed -- so he won't be able to rack up the titles week-in and week-out like Fed. Fed barely breaks a sweat because of his sweet footwork. I'm not sure he's in form though -- so Nadal could take this title. Bye, Steve.

I think Venus is going to win in Miami this year. I think after losing to Serena in Bangalore, Vee is ready for a little payback. Hopefully, by some miracle, common folk will be able to view the tournament at some point over the next two weeks on television. ESPN sucks, they show the same sports all the time all year, tennis is so sporadic (in terms of tournaments to showcase in the US) that you would think the USTA, ATP, WTA, and ESPN ( along with ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ) could reach a reasonable agreement where American tennis fans can enjoy the sport they love and the greatest tournaments on earth. (PS ESPN just add Miami to the schedule, leave IWells out of the picture! I just solved a the problem for L. Scott, A. Kantarian, E. Devilliers, and ESPN, can I get a check for that?)

Swiss Maestro,

if you think the following players could not (in their prime, both with the same racquet technology) beat Fed (or be mentioned in the same sentence) then you are just drinking too much cool aid:

Connors
McEnroe
Rosewell
Big Pancho

AND, Nadal has a much better record at age 21 than Fed ever had. Can he match the rest? doubt it, but wouldn't put it past him.

I am still not sold on the Fed getting to the F...I just don't see it...I still think he needs a few more matches...dude has played a total of 10 matches in 3 months...soooo not there...

Posted by 1963USCtennis 03/26/2008 @ 2:27 PM

Swiss Maestro,

if you think the following players could not (in their prime, both with the same racquet technology) beat Fed (or be mentioned in the same sentence) then you are just drinking too much cool aid:

Connors
McEnroe
Rosewell
Big Pancho

AND, Nadal has a much better record at age 21 than Fed ever had. Can he match the rest? doubt it, but wouldn't put it past him.
------------------------------

Hahahaha now that was funny. I don't know if you read one of the last issues or a post by Bodo, kinda of recent.

He met with Clyf Drisdale not too along ago for an interview. This Drysdale guy played (and beat) Rod Laver, Tony Roche and all those great players from his generation. When Bodo asked him directly how exactly did he think Federer's game would matched against all these guys from the past having the same equipments and under the same conditions he responded "Roger would have eaten those guys for lunch" (I'm pretty sure he meant more often than not, nobody is unbeatable, Roger has just been the closes to that)and I am positive he knows more than either one of us as he is not only a commentator for ESPN but was also a former PRO-athlete that in his day played the best in the world as well. I'll take his word over yours or anyone else's anyday of the week.

Also, John McEnroe said it once "I probably would have only beaten Federer a couple of times"

Beckham,
Do you mean 11 matches?

AO: Hartfield,Santoro,Tipsarevic,Berdych,Blake,Djokovic
Dubai: Murray
IW: Garcia Lopez,Mahut,Ljubicic,(Haas-walkover),Fish

I agree with your semifinalists. For the WTA tour I think that the serbians are playing great tennis and they will take a run for it but I think the best player in the turnament is serena williams and she should win all being well. On the ATP tour I think roger federer will make a comeback but novack djocovic will not let it be easy for him. So my champions are: Serena williams and Novack djocovic

I am glad that Del Potro returned. I like his game, i hope he stays healthy for a while ... I am still surprised that Nalbandian is playing this tournament since he usually skips the masters series event (sometimes Rome or Hamburg) when there is a world rally stage in Argentina. And this weekend the rally world championship is arriving to Argentina, more precisely to his province, Cordoba. Hope he does not loose on first round on friday to be there on saturday ... For those who do not know, Nalbandian owns a rally team that competes in this championship.

IT´S ALWAYS THE SAME!!! I`m bored of those predictions please!
final: djoko d. federer
-AO finalist: Tsonga
-Dubai finalist: F-lo
-IW finalist:MARDY FISH (unbelivable!!!)

So, this time, let´s pick another ¨nearly-imposible finalst¨: Gonzalez

I completly forgot about tsonga! well he will reach very far but Novak should win.

Tsonga has a potential match-uo with Roddick in the 4th round then (in case he makes it) he has Federer. So there could be reasons to think that is as far as he will likely go.

I'm not sure that the current version of Fed will get past either Roddick or Tsonga. On the other side, I don't see Nadal getting past Blake again. So I guess my picks would be Roddick, Murray, Novak and Blake. Murray and Blake in the finals with Blake finally winning one.

"commentator for ESPN but was also a former PRO-athlete that in his day played the best in the world as well. I'll take his word over yours or anyone else's anyday of the week"

And so did every commentator and ex-pro bowler picked New England to roll the Giants in the last Super Bowl.

Drysdale has his opinions and sure they matter. I personally doubt Fed would just walk into the court and roll over Connors. In any surface.

1984 McEnroe? Which surface? Maybe HCs, but I would say only a slight edge.

However, Federe has been at a high level maybe a bit longer than Mc.... Mc connors and Borg had much tougher competition than Fed, who up intil now has only had to fend off a very young Nadal... who could very well take over.


Swiss Maestro, i think that comparing man from different decades is actually not quite fair. Probably the only thing you can compare is how much success they had and with what kind of competition. Even Fed is almost the best looking at his trophy's, his competition this couple of years, wasn't actually that good, as it was for other great players. Not that this fact taking something of his greatness. Just my humble opinion...

This generation on players is faster, stronger and have better equipment. The men's game has a depth it has never had before. Just notice for a second. If you watch a clip from 15 or 20 years ago and compare the kind of strokes those guys used to hit you'll see that for instance they did not go for the lines with as much reckless abandon as today players' do. This is not only due to the composition or speed of the courts and it is certainly not only due to the equipment but to the evolution of these professional athletes. The pros tend to be better and more consistent as time goes by.

To clarify what I am trying to say though I'll express my (and only my) opinion if a certain match up could have taken place.

To me, Nadal would have beaten Borg EVERYTIME on clay. The Spaniard can run as much (if not more) and is physically stronger than the Swede ever was. Not to mention that toxic and cracy top-spin he puts in his ground strokes and how he paints the lines with them. I really rarely have seen clipd or matches of Borg going for an inside-out forehand that paints the line.

Just see Federer's backhand passing shot down the line as well, it is the same kind of situation. So I give today's players the edge. If there was one that could have competed with them from some time ago those are the guys from Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi's generation.

I don't see a lot of improvement to Djokovic's game other than a better serve? Had he met a fresh Nadal at IW, it would have been a close match, no?
Fed's goals this year should be the French, Wimbledon and the Olymics. I'll not be surprised if Fed is pacing himself. He didn't put up too much of a fight against a hot Fish in their last meeting. I don't believe Fed is 100% fit yet. He might not want to take chances with too much desert sun after losing the 1st set.
It is a fair result that Djokovic won IW. But until his baseline offence hard court game can dictate play like what Agassi did at his peak, Djokovic will have to step away from the spot light once Fed resumes his "normal" level. Fed should remain the one to beat in the next couple of years. I just hope Djokovic isn't playing too well too soon. He has a good chance to pass Nadal this year but that may be the height of his career.

I don't see a lot of improvement to Djokovic's game other than a better serve? Had he met a fresh Nadal at IW, it would have been a close match, no?
Fed's goals this year should be the French, Wimbledon and the Olymics. I'll not be surprised if Fed is pacing himself. He didn't put up too much of a fight against a hot Fish in their last meeting. I don't believe Fed is 100% fit yet. He might not want to take chances with too much desert sun after losing the 1st set.
It is a fair result that Djokovic won IW. But until his baseline offence hard court game can dictate play like what Agassi did at his peak, Djokovic will have to step away from the spot light once Fed resumes his "normal" level. Fed should remain the one to beat in the next couple of years. I just hope Djokovic isn't playing too well too soon. He has a good chance to pass Nadal this year but that may be the height of his career.

"for instance they did not go for the lines with as much reckless abandon as today players' do."

A smaller frame and a much smaller sweet spot will do that.

Today's sweet spot is about 3-4 times bigger than that of a Jack Kramer.

To think Fed with a Jack Kramer would play the way he does with the moder racket is just a fantasy.

Why is it then that in baseball they do not change from wooden bats to aluminum (or ceramics)?
How would you compare "records"? which are difficult to compare anyway.

Federer would be great in any era. So would Big Pancho, or any of the others I mentioned.

alright, equipment aside... No player (in my view) has been faster, stronger, fitter and mentally tougher than Nadal. Not even Borg (in my view again)... Today's athletes are better adapted and more versatile as well.

Patrick,
why don't you believe in Henin? i even think she'll win Miami:) as much as i want Chaki to get to quaters/semis, i don't think this is happening - i hope i'm wrong about Anna C.
and as for Kolya, he never plays good IW/Miami. if he gets to the semis it'll be a GREAT surprise.

wwhhhaaatttt ?!?! nadal better then borg?! you really are drinkin too much cool-aide. maybe if rafa wins 8 more gs's u can put him in the same boat. The past players played with heavier racquets and used more or just as much spin on balls as the kids nowadays. besides its impossible to compare generations... one thing i see of the old days that differ from present.. nowadays kids just sit on the baseline and go for blasting balls and couldnt volley to save their lives some exceptions. i will agree with ya somewhat .. sampras/agassi generation could play with the one now. to me they are better then the one now. Federer racked up titles cause he didnt have the pool of competition as the other generations did; appears to be changing now tho.
djoker is playing at a high lvl, good choice to have him making it thru to the finals. i am a nadal fan tho, i'd to see him make through this time

1963USCtennis

I never compared Federer to Wilander. I just said that if Federer doesn't change something he might end as Wilander, as well as McEnroe. They both faded very fast, as soon as their opponents found the way around them... they weren't able to make adjustments to regain the edge. Wilander never won anything after 1988 (his best season) and his dream season and McEnroe was done after 1984, which was the best individual season ever.

If he doesn't pull that, but falls... I think it would be the biggest meltdown ever.

Yet, he was totally blown away by Mardy Fish! It wasn't even a close game... in fact I haven't seen him lose like that. I guess you would have to go back to 2001-2002 to dig a similar loss.
If he would have played against Djokovic imagine what would happen. On press conference he was a ghost...

Conclusions???

Andron,
Had to choose b/w Serena and Henin in the QF and this tourney is not too far from Serena's home and Serena is a 4 time winner of the event. Also, she won a tourney recently and Justine has not captured her 2007 magic yet but when we play on the dirt, Henin will pick up her game. I see Anna C losing to Elena in R16. Since Kolya got dusted by Fish, he has a tendency to bounce back strong.

My conclusion is that Federer is the player that has reached the highest level any player has ever reached and thinking of him as not better than any other player from the past is foolish.

It would be extremely, extremely difficult (almost impossible, though nothing is) to set the bar higher. With him, the game was taken to unprecedented heights as the rest of the field realized how much better they had to get to be able to compete with him.

One more thing - I think the best season ever is Federer's 2006. Yes, I know he did loose more matches than McEnroe in '84 or that he did not win the slam like Laver in '69 but he entered 17 tournaments reaching the final in 16 of those and winning 12 of them. Nobody ever has lost to only 2 players in one year like he did in '06 (Nadal [4] and Murray [1]) and if you push it a little the Dubai and Rome finals are quite deceiving, specially the latter than the former.

posted by Story of Os 03/26/2008 @ 3:39 PM

I don't see a lot of improvement to Djokovic's game other than a better serve?

--------------------

How about: pressure handling, playing big points, movement, backhand (best in the game right now), and the most important... the experience, he learned how to play early rounds on big tournaments and to save energy...

At AO he lost only 1 set, in the final... he didn't have an easy draw. Otherwise he would have equaled the feature Fed accomplished in 07... winning AO without losing a set, and before that you have to go 20 years back to find something similar.

In IW he lost only 1 set, too...

He can win any tournament on any surface. To me, he looks like a perfect candidate for a calendar Slam...

I think his stamina and endurance are going to be really tested through the clay season. You could see how we physically spent he was last fall, yet to be seen...

Will some of you guys stop going on about blake and how he´s going to beat Nadal ect ect , Blake CAN lose to ANYONE on hard courts and Nadal methodically goes deep in ALL hard court tournaments. I can´t see Novak winning back to back and I don´t think Federer is playing well enough to win - my guess is for Nabaldian to get confidence by beating Nadal and then going on to beat Federer or Murray in the final!!!Pundits don´t forget - This year things are more open -it´s not just Rog,Novak or Rafa!!!!

Maestro
"One more thing - I think the best season ever is Federer's 2006. Yes, I know he did loose more matches than McEnroe in '84 or "

Again debatable (I agree with you that Fed is one if not the got)

look at whom Fed Beat in the finals in 2006

Australia--- Baghdatis (not even a top10 player, ANY year!)
RG---------- Lost BAD to a young Gladiator (but maybe THE clay goat)
Wimbledon---- Won in 4 over a young Gladiator
US Open------ Won over an aging Agassi (2 cortizone shots anyone?)


Mc

RG------- Lost in 5 to Lendl (top 10 ALL TIME CLAY). Should've col've
Wimbledon--Dismantled Connors (Top 5? ALL TIME GRASS)
US Open---- Dismantled Lendl (Top 10 ALL TIME HC, or higher)
Aussi----- Did not play, did not matter (can we assume he would have won?)


Mc was the best on all surfaces, BY FAR, that year against much stiffer competition. Federer, GREAT, truly great, but nowhere near the domination that Mc had on clay...

Novak's U.S. hard court and clay seasons 2007

Indian Wells Masters F
Miami Masters W
Estoril Open W
MC Masters 3R
Rome Masters QF
Hamburg Masters QF
RG SF

and fitness and stamina keep improving...

*The Aussie did not matter? Well, players are unlikely to think a Grand Slam is not important enough not to be played nowadays.

*Connors is not Top 5 all time on grass: 1.Sampras,2.Federer,3.Borg,4.Laver and 5.McEnroe

*Record by invencibility and/or streaks by the surface:

hard-Federer
clay-Nadal
grass-Federer
carpet-McEnroe (Federer is somewhat distant 2nd I think)

*'06 RG Finals was not a bad loss. Federer took the first set 6-1 and could have (again, he didn't) taken the 4th set tie breaker when he broke Nadal as he was serving for the match.

*No player is his wildest dreams would have ever thought of the possibility of playing 15 Grand Slams finals in a row (15 SF's).

*10 GS finals that is, my bad.

SwissMaestro 03/26/2008 @ 3:50 PM

alright, equipment aside... No player (in my view) has been faster, stronger, fitter and mentally tougher than Nadal. Not even Borg (in my view again)... Today's athletes are better adapted and more versatile as well.

----------------------

SPEED

This is relative. In ATP tour there were many fast players. Who is the fastest we are never going to know, but this doesn't mean anything because to be fast per se is not giving you any competitive advantage unless you convert that "raw" speed into tennis speed, which involves two things: court positioning and lateral movement.

Now, Nadal is probably the fastest player on the tour in pure physical terms, however his game in 1/2 final of IW is a perfect example of how "raw" speed gets neutralized when the opponent is better positioned and has more lateral movement which that gives him an advantage to hit all the balls in front and dominate the game even with less physical ability.
In that case Nadal is using his speed on the wrong end, chasing the balls outside, making off balance shots and playing way behind baseline which puts him into a defensive situation. To win a game like that he needs to keep making impossible shots all the way which is nearly impossible.


STRENGTH

If it's about who has the biggest biceps... than it's him, but again in tennis terms more biceps does not mean more power. Far more important than pure power is at which spot you hit the ball and the swing you make. Hitting the ball down will not generate the same power as if you make contact while the ball is still going up (for instance). Perfect example: Nadal's 1/2f at IW.

Fitness and mental toughness... it depends. Sure, Nadal had some impressive victories coming from 2 sets down but there were many tough players over past 2 decades. Example: Aggassi...


Conclusion: Nadal is just way to "raw"...

Nadal will win sony and become number one next month all to it.

"*Connors is not Top 5 all time on grass: 1.Sampras,2.Federer,3.Borg,4.Laver and 5.McEnroe"

Ok, my bad... although you must get the point. And if Connors HAD played the following in his Wimbledon Finals

Philipousis
Roddick
Roddick
Nadal
Nadal

Where would he rank? (2005 Rodick does NOT compare to McEnroe 82 or Borg 77 78 ... sorry , maybe Ashe, and yes 74 was a very old and tired by the finals Rosewell)

Lets just safely say Connors is top 10 all time on grass and Lendl top10 on HCs... compare to Baghdatis top 30? player?

Come on. McEnroe's 84 season is one of the very best, if not THE best. (Laver might say 1962 was just as tough... Laver Rosewell Santana Osuna Emerson...)


Steve, there's something about Federer that u don't like. Who is Djokovic to defeat Federer in the end and u are already writing Nadal off. Djokovic is not going to win this, if he does, I will stop watching Tennis. There is no way he will meet Federer in the finals and defeat him infact, Djokovic will never defeat Federer again. I am looking forward to a wonderful match from Federer and I guess he will bounce back and beat everybody enroute to finals.
Your predictions are usually wrong, u never get it right.

SwissMaestro, Nadal could beat roger on grass at this point. It seem like nadal is playing better than last year. He even beat james...That's a big step for someone that lost 3 times to the same man. As for Roddick and Novak Djokovic those two are the only one that can take on number 1 and 2 right now even thought nadal own both of them same goes for Federer...We'll have wait and see.


Steve, before you talk about who's going to win or loss why don't you look at tennis as a sport, beside looking at it as a gamble. Nobody know who will win or loss ..each game is deferent...That's the reality..it would be ashame if tennis is all set up.

I like stee's predictions and the reasons he gives behind them. Makes his blog not only interesting but also fun. Nobody can get them all. My 4 finalists are:

1st quarter - Federer
2nd quarter - Ferrer
3rd quarter - Djokovic
4th quarter - Blake

Semis:

Federer d. Ferrer
Djokovic d. Blake

Final:

Federer defeats Djokovic.

i don't agree much about federer going to the finals...i certainly hope so cause i'm a federer fan but with his conditions now i don't see it happening and i agree with rafurafa it's open this years..could be anyone's game
remember nalbandian last year?...no one expected him to win madrid and paris back to back and beating the best TWICE but it did happen...mardy fish in indian wells! no one saw that coming but again it did happen
i'd love to see nalbandian and ferrer going to the fianls and it would be really exciting to see a match up between nadal and tsonga

i find it fascinating how the barometer of roger federer's dominance can illicit so much blogging. if he's up, it's all about if he can sustain and who could topple him. when he's down, it's all about can he come back and who are his main competitors. it's hilarious.

and all comparisons of players past and present aside, roger is the player that has truly embodied the game of tennis in it's most classic sense - he plays with such beauty, doesn't bounce the ball 20 times or pick his ass in between serves, is probably the best global ambassador for the game that we've ever had (genuine, friendly, talented, multi lingual, scandal free) and has the total playing package: all the shots, speed, ability.

bottom line: we shouldn't really be debating about the 'end of federer' - it's way too premature.

Roger lost 3 more total games in 4 close sets in 2006 FO final versus Rafa, and a close 4th set tiebreak Roger lost, and in 2006 Wimbledon final versus Rafa, Roger won 9 more total games (a lot easier and shorter, 6 more games difference won) than the FO final he lost.
UNdisputable facts and stats, NOT biased opinions.

Even in 2007 FO final, also versus Rafa, Roger won a set routinely and no set Roger lost was easy for Rafa at all. Reality and facts and stats prove it. 3 of Roger's losses last year, he won more/equal total games and points and lost very close final sets and very close 1st sets too. 1 to Dkokovic in Montreal, 1 to Canas in Miami, and 1 to Gonzalez in Shanghai Round Robin Masters Cup. All 3, Roger definitely easily could've and maybe should've won, but lost all 3 very close matches. He won more total games and points in 2 of them, and was equal in games and won more points in the 3rd one. Facts, stats and reality prove it, NOT biased, inaccurate opinions.

Yes, you're right, it is all true, proven, undisputable (without lying) facts you stated, Anonymous.

Uhh Reality Roger is boring and he only beat nadal one time on clay!!! I said one time!!!!!!!! . Nadal sure he ain't that great on hard but he sure is improving and could beat Roger on it and it's a fact. Nadal is the future of tennis. To be honest james is old, fish is old, roger is old. Nadal is only 21 and that's right for tennis. 26 or over is way to old. I know cause I play tennis more than anyone that post on here. When your at nadal age your mostly likely to slow down but get better in a few months. I don't if it's nadal looks or style that get him so many fans lol but he got everything from looks to skill. Djokovic look like pee wee lol ...Pee wee won a grand slam ...what ashame ... He's tooo boring and lame. Nadal now that's who I want to see win it all.

hi steve

your picks leave a bad taste in my mouth because you have ruled out rafa's chances! :D like joe, i'd like to stand by my man and hope he does the improbable and gets through whomever he meets in the quarters, semis, finals... if he even gets past his first three matches!

as for roger, i just hope he doesn't go deep in this tournament so that the number one ranking is more interestingly disputed by rafa and novak, and also because i really would like to see someone else other than roger winning it all. nothing against roger at all, it's just that i don't have anything much in me going for him, either. :)

John, thanks for playing the role of the blind Joker worshipper to entice the flood of response. You almost had me fooled until you said Djokovic would be the perfect calendar slam candidate, very funny.
Djokovic always has been a confidence cocky player. He is moving up from the hunter group now so we will have to wait and see how he handles pressure. His groundies, concentration, will to win and court coverage have always been his weapons so I won't count those as improvements. He didn't face any confident, hungry and capable opponents at IW whereas Nadal beated two in a row right before their match. It was more the luck of the draw there than learned how to play early rounds on big tournaments and to save energy...
I am a Fed fan but won't mind to see Nadal winning this one.

Erratic does not describe FSN coverage. Horrendous is more like it

Good picks Steve, but I'm going to go with a Nadal/Federer showdown here, or at least Nadal in the finals. I really don't know where to place Federer's game; he says he's limited from mono, but the guy plays great against some, and not so much against others. Djokovic has yet to prove he can win week in and week out, so I'm going to say he'll have an early exit here. Which leaves me with...Tsonga. He hasn't learned to win yet, and I mean win when he's not playing the kind of tennis that he played in Australia, but few can match his movement and power. Champions find ways to win (I know, old saying but true), and he has yet to find that extra ummph that Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have. Same with Ferrer, who I really like. Fit guy and all, but...
Can we please not mention Safin anymore in regards to upsets or wins or anything like that? I think he's proven his meddle...

Djokovic is certainly not better than Federer. Let's let Roger have a couple of healthy months, and then make determinations. He demolished the field at the end of the year masters. He played the best tennis I have ever seen him (anyone?) play. That was the last time he was healthy. Even if he isn't sick anymore, he had virtually NO off season training due to his illness. He also has had few matches. He has moments of greatness, but then other times it abandons him. Playing more matches should bring his consistency up. I hope he gets a coach, but not because he needs to adjust his game (not in any major way). It would be good, though, to have an extra set of eyes, and a different point of view, not to mention, someone who can motivate him when he might not be firing on all cylinders.

My picks for the quarters: Fed defeats Roddick, Murray defeats Ferrer, Djokovic defeats Gasquet, Blake defeats Nalbandian.

Semis: Murray defeats Fed, Djokovic defeats Blake.

Finals: Djokovic defeats Murray.

Djokovic right now is better than roger. As for nadal NO! Nadal is better than both man. It would be ashame if nadal don't win sony.

Sorry, the 7:23 post was done by me. Djokovic seems to have another easy draw. Gasquet is the next highest seed in his quarter and I think fans who watched him at IW should get a refund.
Its about time that someone other than the big 3 wins a Master tournament. I like Blake, Tsonga and Murray's chances.

oh and steve --- i'm rooting for jelena for purely sentimental reasons.

I think Roger is ready to win!
As for the women, has everyone forgotten Justine Henin?

Alibaby.
Justine has not been forgotten but I believe Serena beats her at this tourney. Remember, Henin year did not get off the ground until clay season came winning Warsaw and losing in Berlin during 2 rain delayed weeks. She had to play the final in Warsaw on Monday and she lost to Sveta in SF after playing Jelena on Sat morning and playing all except for a few games on Sunday against Sveta. Then, Sveta completed the win on Sunday but lost to Ana in the final. Of course, Justine steamrolled the field in Roland Garros.

roddick all the way

i want venus or serena to win, mostly venus though because she needs to get back on track and win and not lose to low ranked players. know what i mean?
realistically henin is probably going to win because she'll beat serena in quarters and not have to face venus because she's going to lose early. i hate my intuition. toots

here's some interesting numbers:
Djokovic is the number 1 player of the last 6 months. As I count it, here are the points earned over the last 6 months (since sep 27, 2007)
Djokovic 2130
Federer 2000
Nalbandian 1575
Nadal 1570
Ferrer 1305
Murray 1200
Tsonga 1025

here's another one:
Fed's losses by year
2002 22
2003 17
2004 6
2005 4
2006 5
2007 9
The peak was in 2005. Chances are, he will have more than 9 losses this year

The idea of Djokovic winning a calendar year slam is not far-fetched. He has an identical W/L record at each of the grand slams of 10/3--pretty consistent...

I do believe that Djokovic will win this tournament. I think federer will win his first tournament during the clay season. He is really good on clay. Second best to Nadal on that surface. And most of the other guys really hate the red clay. I actually like federer. However, this is a really good thing for the sport of tennis. The ATP is full of a bunch of very talents guys who just don't have a lot of belief. You can love or hate Djokovic. But I think he is really good for the game. The other guys are really starting to believe that they can win. I actually don't think that federer is playing bad at all. He lost to Fish who is a good player who has been sidetracked by injuries and commitment issues. Fish was just on fire. It wasn't much that Federer could do. I think federer will make a solid showing in Miami. But I don't believe that he will win this tournament.

It is clear that Federer did not dominate the tour anymore as he did from 04 to 07. I believe it is due to a combination of the following reasons:

-Mono. No reason why we should not believe in him. Afterall, he has never faked injury in the past. His track record speaks for himself and should deserve some respect.

-Age. Federer will be 27 after Wimbledon and his mileage is very high in the last 5 years since he won so much. He probably have realized that he simply cannot win over 80 matches a year anymore and hence strategically sets his priority only on tournaments that matter to him most, ie, Grand Slams.

-Mental fatique. Federer has done everything imaginable in the past 4 years, except a triumph in Roland Garros, but the press seems enjoy to see his failure more than his success. He lost a few matches to solid players like Nalbandian, Gonzalez last fall and the press and fans talked about his downfall. He lost to Djorkovic and Murray, the best young guns on APT when he had yet to fully recover from mono and people said he is over. By the way he was treated by the press and casual tennis fans, it is not difficult for him to lose interest for the game a bit. He has achieved so much, and set the bar so high that he is almost in a no win situation.

It is not unimaginable for him to take pressure off by playing with less intensity in lesser tournaments. He will also be an underdog going into Roland Garros behind Nadal, Djorkovic, or even Nalbandian, Ferrer etc and try from there, which is quite different from 05-07 when pressure and expectation was sky high even though his chief opponent might be the GOAT on clay. The upper hand is, he will likely hold his usual no 1 seed unless something extraordinary happens from now til May and hence has nothing much to lose apart from a few Tennis Master Series titles, which he has 14 of them already.

-Off court activities. To be fair, Federer probably had spent more attention to things like exhibition games with Sampras, fashion shows, magazine cover photos etc a bit more than he should, and his intensity and preparation have fallen a bit. He has to regroup and practice more to get back on track.

In his games in Indian Wells vs Mahut, Ljubicic, Federer played good as ever, with great foot speed, court coverage, serving well, everything in his arsenal clicked. But he was simply a ghost the day he lost to Fish, and did not have the willingness to fight. His heart, rather than the body, seemed to be the issue.

Understanding the above, as a fan of his, I am not much disheartened by his situation in the past 3 months, and will not be surprised to see him coming back strong in the upcoming months. Even if this does not happen, it won't and should not take anything away from his achievements in the past 5 years, which was incredible by any standard.

One thing is for sure. If he triumphs again, the press and the people who turn their back on him would be the first ones to greet his as the 'greatest of all time', 'better than ever', 'head and shoulder above the rest'.


Federer hasn't fully recovered from mono, despite what he says. It will torture him until early summer and my prediction is that his 1st title will be at Wimbledon! His lack of strength and stamina is more than obvious. I'm expecting him to be 100% in the 2nd half of the year. Until then, he will struggle.

Charles,

I think that's great information you've posted. The last six months have basically been hard-court galore, so it's no surprise that Djokovic, now lauded as the best hard court player, takes the cake on HC points.

It's also interesting that what with everyone saying Nadal is crap on HC, he's number 4 on points. The guy is consistently in the last 8 on his least favourite surfaces, with one MS SF, one MS F, one YEC SF, and one GS SF. This corroborates what I've been maintaining in the past year or so: Nadal is number 1 on clay, and Top 5 on the other two surfaces--conservatively! Djokovic is number 1 on HC, and Top 4 on the other two, and since there are more points on HC, this will give him an edge. Federer is the best in grass, and number 2 on the other two surfaces.

The natural order, really, is Federer-Djokovic-Nadal--if we look at aggregate form over the past year. However, the truth is, Federer's status is a mystery, Djokovic is the new star, and Nadal is in slow but constant improvement.

For me, Serena will win her 5th SONY ERICSSON title..no doubt!!!

I feel like I'm the only sane one in the room. Or maybe i'm the only one who is crazy? :)
Roger Federer made a grand slam semi final while suffering from Mono. Yet this is viewed as a disappointing result even AFTER news of his illness came to light.
He was diagnosed, and then later was given the green light to go for it in training a few days before Dubai. He lost to a player who belongs in the top 10.
While undergoing intensive training sessions DURING a tournament in an attempt to catch up on lost fitness, he plays for days only to then suffer a lackluster defeat.
He was cleared of the illness in MARCH. It is still MARCH. What on earth did people expect? TMF back in assasin mode straight away? Other players who have suffered from mono, are given months of "free passes" to explain the losses and up and down play.
I'm not even a full blown Fed-fan, but I just shake my head, not understanding, everytime I read an article about Fed's decline.
I don't get it?

Fully agreed with Kath's comment. People have unrealistic expectation with Federer, which is probably his fault of winning so easily and consistently in the last few years.

Just imagine, Djorkovic is labelled as the King right now. However, while he has won in AO and MS Indiana, he also lost to Davydenko in Davis Cup, a lowly ranked Gilles Simon in Marseille and Roddick in Dubai.

The first one could be explained by illness but in Federer's case, people can question 'if you are fit enough to show up, you are fit enough to play', so no excuses. In the latter two, Djorkovic was beaten convincingly.

So to put Djorkovic in Federer's shoe, it is just a so-so year, with 'only' 2 wins in 4 tournaments, and 3 losses to someone he should not lose to. From now on, it is always a failure if he does not at least make the final.

These expectations may eventually eat on him. Djorkovic is supposed to be a player who likes the attention, enjoy the spotlight and status being the one to beat. Let see how he reacts to the situation day in and day out now that he has reached the status.

SwissMaestro,

I like your finalists picks. My 4 finalists also are:

1st quarter - Federer
2nd quarter - Ferrer
3rd quarter - Djokovic
4th quarter - Blake

Semis:

Federer d. Ferrer
Djokovic d. Blake

Final:

Federer defeats Djokovic.

Felizjulianidad, I think Nadal's #1 clay status is different from Djokovic's argueable #1 HC status. Nadal will win at least 80% of the clay tournaments he enters but I don't believe Djokovic can reach anywhere close to that height on HC even without a fit Federer. Players like Murray, Tsonga, Nadal and Blake can beat a less than 100% Djokovic on HC.
If Fed regains his form before RG, he has a good chance to take the French title from Nadal but that means he will also play well on HC, leaving very little for Djokovic. I hope that is the way things will unfold this year, it will be unfortunate if Fed loses his #1 status due to illness.
Kath and Chrisauhc, like your comments. Judging from the time of your post, are you guys from outside north America?

Federer beating Novak?? r u kidding me?

Tennis ace, I am not as optimistic as Zarko about Fed's chance in Miami but if and when Fed regains his form, I believe he can beat Djokovic 70% of the time on HC.
Last year in Montreal, Djokovic surprised Fed with his serves but I doubt that will happen often.

Can people stop picking Blake as a quarter finalist - he does not have the consistency to make 2 quarters consecutively - who do you all think he is ? Nadal!

Wow, in reading some of the comments, and looking at Steve's picks, you would think Justine isn't playing in Miami. The Queen has proven that she can beat the Williamses back to back, if that is what it takes to win. No fear, no doubt, Miami is the Queen tourney to win. It's all about Justine! Go Justine, world's #1!

Swiss Maestro, I have TTC, do you know when they are going to start showing matches because that would be great. Thanks Sammie.

Serena will dismantle Ivanovic in the final

Way to go Zarko!

Samantha,

TTC will start broadcasting from tomorrow night on or from saturday afternoon on, not really sure. But if you have Direct TV, call and add the 'sports package' to the package you already have, this way you get the FSN channels (600's) that broadcast early stages of the KB tournament TTC and CBS will not cover.

chrisauhc

"-Mono. No reason why we should not believe in him. Afterall, he has never faked injury in the past."

mono? M*O*N*O?? with mono, he couldn't get from bed, let alone walk, run etc, yet, as you said: "In his games in Indian Wells vs Mahut, Ljubicic, Federer played good as ever, with great foot speed, court coverage, serving well, everything in his arsenal clicked." fedex and mental fatigue? - that is more likely. simply, he avoided loosing from djokovic again in a short period of time and that is a very rational decision, not so sporty, though. fish was on fire, but no so much on fire; exfed's B-game was more then sufficient versus fish.

here is a look at these guys win %s
( I believe I calculated these #s before Australia, col 4 is lifetime)


Djocovic YTD won YTD lsost Won Lost % Titles
Hard: 8 2 70 27 72.16% 6
Clay: 0 0 37 17 68.52% 2

Nadal
Hard: 10 3 109 43 71.71% 5
Clay: 0 0 133 13 91.10% 18

Federer
Hard: 5 1 334 69 82.88% 36
Clay: 0 0 102 36 73.91% 6


Fed is king on hard (82%)... Nadal and Djokovic at basically the same 72% but Djoco 6 titles in less matches (8 now?)...

Nadal on clay is beyond belief. (note Fed is "better" on Clay than Nadal and Djoco on hard... so far)


What is amazing to me is the perception that can be created through TV... "Nadal is not good on hard courts". 5 Titles and 72% w is pretty damn good, maybe not quite #1 good just yet....

Wow, London. Your picks are really off. Serena's got this tournament. Justine had a great 2007 -- but everyone is healthy. Sharapova demolished her at the AO and she just lost another tournament. Justine is a momentum player. She has none right now. There is only one player who can win a championship out of the blue with hardly any momentum. Guess who?

twixx,

You are out of your element if you think Federer fears Djokovic. I think is the total opposite. He wants to show this cocky player who the real number 1 in the world is. Fear to play Djokovic? hahaha good one man! what's next? Spadea winning Wimbledon?

The bottom line is that Federer still isn't healthy. I went back and watch his US Open final match against Novak yesterday and the biggest difference between that match and the match in the Aussie Open is Federer's movement. The mono definitely slowed him down in Australia and the effects are still lingering because he was equally as sluggish against Fish in IW. He is a good two steps slower and his shot preperation is also much slower. So, I don't see him winning in Miami becuase I'm sure he still won't be 100% but once he's fully healthy, there is no doubt that he is still the dominant player on the ATP and yes, still better than Novak. I definitely see Novak reaching #1 evenutally but Fed still will be ahead of him for the next couple of years.

I argue that Federer is not better on clay than Djokovic. Remember, Federer suits better faster courts... he struggled a lot to start making solid result on clay. 2 RG finales are the result of pure hustle. Novak always had solid results on clay, it's just people forget that since he is so good at hard courts which are 60-70% of all tournaments.

Now, I think it's going to be very interesting this year because for Rafa and Roger it will be harder than ever to defend their RG/Wimbledon titles. There's a good chance at least one won't be able to do it, not to say both (that would be too optimistic)... which means ranking will get even more interesting.

I am thrilled to see Nadal-Djokovic rematch on RG. It will be challenging.

Tennis is once again an interesting game...

I disagree in part with the comments about speed made by John Smith.Nadal is not only faster than Novak but also a better mover. His problem comes with what he does with the ball when he reaches it - ie hit less flat with alot of topspin - giving a player like Novak time to get in position and play from inside the court. Nadal has to contend with a different preposition a faster and flatter ball which gives him less time to get ready - but he moves better than anybody - just ask Agassi who saw him as the best mover in the game. The main problem for Nadal as I see it his service return - he doesn´t return well on hard courts - too defensive

I think Federer and Nadal would tear Djokovic apart in their respective dominant surfaces: grass and clay. Nadal is specially tough to beat on the red stuff. And Federer will go into the grass season with a 54 match winning streak that for some reason I don't see him loosing in the foreseeable future.

Story of Os: yeah right, I work in Asia now, but find it easy to follow tennis via cable tv and internet

twixx: I think Federer's recent 'struggle' is a combination of a number of things, and mono is likely one of them. We don't know how bad was him before AO. Maybe he really could not get out of bed for weeks? Who knows outside his camp? I will give him the benefit of doubt.

I still don't believe he has to avoid Djorkovic or anyone intentionally, but on the other hand, I don't rule this out. One thing I observe in his Fish match is that he did not has concentration at all right from the start, and it is quite obvious that he has a lack of interest on that particular day. A lot of fans pointed out that Mirka was not in the stadium on that day, and this may have something to do with his uncharacteristic behaviour.

Federer is more human in recent months, both physically and mentally, but it does not necessarily mean that he won't be able to find his A game in his rest of his career, so let's stay tuned.

Federer is not just the best mover nowadays but the best mover ever. Ask Steve why in the post about the "best ever shots" Federer was picked over anyone else in history. I remember he said he was not even going to argue with it as he has never seen anyone moving with such lethal elegance in a tennis court. Nough said!

SwissMaestro, i'm not talking about the fear. it's just.... it's a new situation for fed. fed is great and smart player, it is reasonable to think he needs some time to deal with a new situation in one hand, in the other - not to make it worse than it is already. but, mono theory is ridiculous. mono is too heavy to live with, and to practice - is it life threatening and enormously painful (if one could find energy to practice in the first place).

Then again does not that tell you about his great will to win every match, every tournament he enters? Look at Ancic man, 6 months, yes read again 6 months out due to mono!! and Federer with mono was making the semis of the AO loosing to the eventual champion and could have taken the 1st and 3rd sets?? To me this only shows his inner fire, his champion heart.

twixx: your statements about mono are just wrong. Not only Federer, but Agnes Szavay played tennis with an undiagnosed case of Mono. Ancic's case was more severe--it's a disease whose effects vary wildly from person to person, as many medical professionals on this website have attested. If Agnes Szavay could play a month of tennis while having mono, why couldn't Federer, whose fitness and endurance are probably light-years ahead of hers?

SM: Look at Ancic man, 6 months, yes read again 6 months out due to mono!!

exacltly. ančić even completly withdraw for atleast four month because of mono. we didn't saw fed making a pause. it's impossible to play with mono. http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=107198

rafurafa, when I made comments on speed I made clear that natural speed, which I called "raw" speed and speed in a tennis game are two different things.

You narrowly missed the point, but in some part you confirmed what I wrote, speed in a game does not depend entirely on players pure speed, but more on other factors: swing, contact spot and court positioning.

demo:http://youtube.com/watch?v=3CKVVUt174M

Djokovic is slower than Nadal but has better court positioning, he plays inside, hits the ball on way up and well in front which gives him more time.

What means, more time? It means you are faster executing... simple.

If you are slow executing, raw speed is useless

sm, agnes did't played tennis with mono.

Q. This is only your third Grand Slam. You're in the quarterfinals. Can you point to anything that you're doing right now that it's all coming together for you?
AGNES SZAVAY: No. I can say always the same, like last year I had mononucleosis. *I'm playing since September last year.* So I'm always improving, playing better and better. http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-09-03/k.php

Ancic's case of mono though was said to enlarge his heart, thus more severe. If he wouldn't have taken care of it properly the consequences could have been fatal as an enlarged heart tries too hard to pump blood into the body and leads to heart failure.

Thanks Swiss Maestro.

twixx: read the rest of the interview. She played 6 months with mono.