The draw is out.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt...008/410/mds.pdf

Rough draw for Federer. He has his work cut out for him to even reach Djokovic (who has a better draw) in the semi. If Novak makes it to the semi, how he fares against either Federer or -- just guessing -- Nalbandian will say a lot about how much clay improvement he's made during his recent time off and the past year. Martina just picked Djokovic to win this year's French, for whatever that's worth.

Nadal's draw doesn't look rough until the semi. If it were hard courts, Ancic would be scary, but I don't know if Mario can threaten him on clay. A semi vs. Davydenko or Ferrer would likewise be revealing as to whether Rafa still fully has 'It.'

The last year or two, Nadal's increased aggression on grass and to a lesser degree hard courts have helped him on clay, where he's playing a less defensive game and often winning matches quicker. He might need to call on that skill and make it work...

Rafa has to man up, but he's right to complain about the pointless UScentric schedule change, which basically calls upon him to defend three tournament wins and one final in four weeks. The other players may largely (unless they're American) have to play 3 Masters in 4 weeks as well, but none have to defend a title in the only week off, and none have as many points to defend/matches to play in the Masters.

Rafa should probably not play Hamburg, even though he'll lose a ton of points. Either that or not defend Barcelona (is he scheduled to play there)?

He is scheduled to play Barcelona, and it's hard for him to skip that one because a couple of his sponsors are tied into that event. I'm thinking whether he pulls out of Hamburg will largely depend on how he does in Monte Carlo & Rome - and how Djokovic does in both of those events.

Federer's quarter is one I thought has more to do with how he's feeling, as opposed to how talented his rival are. Agree Nalbandian is his biggest hurdle - but Dave is so unpredictable that no one knows which Nalbandian will show up. Djokovic I thought had a tricky draw: Moya's beaten him (on a hard court no less); Gasquet should pose a bigger threat to him on clay than hard court; and who knows what Guga might be able to conjure up against him??

Davydenko drew what I thought was the toughest quarter: Andreev, Almagro, Acasuso and Monaco all have plenty of clay court creds. Nadal has a good draw for him. The most interesting thing about watching him will be how confidently he's hitting his shots in the early rounds. Last year here he came out on fire from his first match. If we see that again, then he'll let everyone know it'll require a herculean effort to take him down.

What a pace we live at today. Martina has already made her pick for the French, even before the main warm-up tournaments?! What good does it do to open your mouth so early about who's going to win the French when it's still only April, there are several tough weeks of tournaments ahead, and the best play the best at the majors, not the warm-ups? It isn't enough to predict the winner when there's money riding on it...say when the betting pool is going on for the actual tournament?

Btw, who do you like in the US Presidency race for 2012? Better make your pick soon, or you'll be.....gasp.....behind!

On the other subject...if they did run the US tournaments later to avoid the NCAA basketball....they're essentially doing the opposite of what I think would be good for tennis: to have the French a week ealier, and Wimbeldon a week later so there could be more of a difference between the clay and grass court seasons. Compressing things in the spring by pushing the US tournies later is not good for the game (not good for the players). Rafa will man up. But he and others should object to that decision making.

Wow...sucks for Nadal. I think Djokovic has a good shot to win Wimbledon. I don't know....just doesn't seem like the Fed is going to get that elusive French. I definitely think Djokovic is in the picture big time.

I also find it odd that Martina made her pick of Djokovic so early on. I can see making a pick before Hamburg - two MS clay tournaments have been played, so there's enough of a "database" to make an educated guess about the Roland Garros champion. But before Monte Carlo?? Sheesh, she even came out with her verdict before the Estoril and Valencia finals! Even though the French is still five weeks away, if Roger loses to Nikolay, you can't be lovin' his chances in Paris. And if David Ferrer beats Almagro in Valencia, I say he makes some noise @ RG. Anyway, where did you read this? Did Martina say why she thought Djoker would win RG? I'm a bit baffled by the pick since Martina has stated that she doesn't like Novak's forehand because it's "too busy." I have to agree - he often uses too much wrist on the shot - drives me NUTS. So it's both a puzzling and bold pick by Martina. I'd really like to know her rationale.

If David Ferrer does win Valencia (a small tournament, but packed with lotsa good claycourters), that puts two tough Spaniards in Rafa's section of the draw (the other being Juan Carlos Ferrero). In light of Rafa's astonishing record on clay, I'm not saying either guy will beat Rafa. But they might just wear him out so badly that he's in rough shape in the tournament's latter stages.

I definitely agree its a bit early to be picking the French Open winner right now. And seriously...even I was talking about Rafa "struggling" this time last year and when the clay season came around he dominated!!! So why pick anyone other than Nadal right now? We haven't gotten to the meat of the clay court season and best of 5 is much different than best of 3 to beat Nadal on that French Open clay. So yeah I don't know. Martina also said Henin should be the best grass court player of this generation. So I don't know. Maybe she was sippin some of that southern "tea".

Martina is a huge fan of Djokovic. She had said last year when asked who she'd like to coach, she gave Djokovic as her answer. She's not a Nadal fan - much like Guy Forget. They both think he's got the ugliest game around. Plus the fact that Djokovic does come from the same part of the world as Martina.

Djokovic does have the game to win the French - he is a grinding style of player, after all. The question for him is one of stamina. His hard court prowess & muscle memory will almost automatically predispose him to go for the winning shot in a rally when the legs start to get a little rubbery (a.k.a. The Sampras Clay Court Method). When those shots of his come back and the point's gotta start all over again, well, you can see why you're out there for hours and hours . I'm not sure it's Djokovic's cup of tea to stay out on a court and grind away for hours match after match - that's Nadal's wheelhouse . I think Djokovic at the French faces the same dilemma that Nadal faces in a place like The Australian Open: they're each dark horse opportunists, hoping that a draw either favors them, or opens up with a lot of upsets to increase their chances. No matter where Djokovic is seeded at the French this year, he'll very likely have to knock off both Federer AND Nadal to win it, and given what Federer & Nadal have accomplished on clay over the last 3 years it's tough to see Djokovic taking three sets from BOTH of them back to back. At least this year.

Nadal does dominate on clay. But that doesn't mean he couldn't lose. He'll inevitably lose one day at the French, and lose in some of the warm up tournaments. But as long as he's on clay his losses will be minimal overall. Federer is still sputtering this year trying to find his game - although my gut tells me he's geared everything toward winning the French this year and that's why his results have been less than what we normally see from him. Fed's window of opportunity is closing, and his chances to win the French will decrease exponentially faster than Rafa's chances to win Wimbledon. Makes sense to bring on Higueras now.

One thing we do know for sure. As Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have all shown us this year - some of their results can be mystifyingly bad. Anyone wanna predict we could see a French Final with none of these three in it?

True. But in Martina's defense, she was just answering a question posed by Shriver on ESPN during Serena's semifinal. According to my boyfriend, she also predicted Justine will win the French on the women's side.

shaking my head.....Just because someone asks her a question doesn't mean she has to answer it. Martina could have answered: It's too early to predict. That's why we have these tournaments before the majors....to see who's playing well on this surface at this time....who looks fresh...etc. By such an answer she would have pointed to important regular tournaments=keeping interest up while keeping her own predictions for right before the French is to start.

Ach....don't know why it bothers me at all. Except that Shriver and company are more interested in talking and predicting. That's their job, of course. But predictions don't give you better starting times, easier draws, or win you a point, let alone the tournament. I'd rather hear her ask an expert like Martina how someone is playing, what that player's strength/weaknesses are on clay, and who she thinks would be a tough match-up for him/her in terms of playing style.

Anyway, back to the actual tennis.

I wonder if Martina predicted that Querrey would beat Moya today!? What a crazy year 2008 is on the men's tour. I feel like absolutely anything can happen at this point.

That was certainly the biggest shock of the day, but there were a couple of other results that struck me as remarkable. I sure didn't expect Gael Monfils to beat Verdasco. It's hard to believe Monfils is only 21; it seems like his good results were so long ago. I'm also mildly surprised (though pleased) that Tipsarevic beat Mathieu on clay. Although he's off to a good start this year, I didn't think Janko's game would translate too well to clay.

i think she said justine "should" be the best grass court player, but come Wimbledon it's been Venus Williams, so she got it right, Martina knows her tennis.

can we talk about Nic "long" Lapentti still out there winning today, best legs in the business. yum.

You said it. He is fiiiiine. I think Tealsea has commented on Lapentti's handsomeness as well. Lapentti is playing Tipsarevic next. That is one good-looking match. Another one is Safin vs. Pics Ferrer tomorrow.

I caught a little of Murray-Volandri this morning. It's impressive for Murray to have so soundly beaten Filippo, (who really sets off my 'dar). Murray is hitting a lot harder than he used to on clay, where I've seen him content to shuffle through long pushing contests.

Murray is up against Djokovic next in one of Monte Carlo's first big showdowns. But for Murray to have a fighting chance against a player who has thus far owned him, he is going to have to overcome his tendency to get too clever on big points or immediately after breaking his opponent. Djokovic feasts on those kinds of lapses.

The first big showdown is Ancic vs. Nadal. The more I look at the draw, the more it seems like the bottom half is rough: in addition to Nadal and Davydenko, it still has Andreev, Almagro, Monaco, Kohlschreiber, Ferrer and maybe Ferrero. Aside from the completely questionable Nalbandian and Gasquet (and the freefalling Robredo), the top half has no top clay players to trouble Federer or Novak. One possible upset factor though is Gael Monfils, who is sporting some ridiculous hair extensions.

I wish the Monte Carlo coverage would improve in terms of the ball, which is really hard to see well! People are complaining on every site I've looked at.

To end with Querrey, it's not only impressive that he beat Moya, but also, sadly, that unlike his countrymen he could be bothered to play this event. Over the weekend the Tennis Channel showed the French final where Agassi came back to beat Medvedev. It wasn't that long ago that the US had men who could play on every surface, or play on clay. Lately it seems like the attitude -- one that extends to the (unreliable) US TV coverage that seems to be governing ATP scheduling -- is that clay should be downgraded to make up for the US men's weakness. Sounds fair.

That's one more reason why it would be good if Ryan Harrison does have the goods on clay years from now. Or even if Querrey can continue to post some results. A willingness to rally was key to him winning the Tennis Channel Open. Querrey can hit big, but he can also be consistent. On a good day.

And oh yeah -- JW Tsonga: So, is he seriously injured, or soon to rehabilitate himself by practicing on grass?

A little behind here, but ... wow, Guga must be a shadow of his former self. Ljubicic is the kind of player that Guga in his prime would have eaten for breakfast; in 2008 Guga lost to him 2 and 1. Ljubicic then went down rather routinely to Djokovic 3 and 3. The most interesting thing about the match was the shirt exchange at the net and the sweaty hug afterward Interestingly enough, Novak is playing dubs in Monte Carlo with Radek Stepanek, but they're getting creamed right now by US Open champs Aspelin & Knowle.

Does Novak know that Martina is a huge fan of his? If so, why doesn't he ask her for some mentoring?? While I have all the respect in the world for Mark Woodforde's doubles accomplishments, approaching the net in singles and doubles are two very different animals. And frankly, if I had to pick which lefty played the net better ... um, sorry Mark.

Marat Safin still can't win two matches in a row. After beating Malisse in the 1st round, Marat went down rather meekly to David Ferrer 2 and 2. Sorry to see Tommy Haas had to retire in his first match because of a shoulder injury. Anyone know more details? In the Battle of the Beauties, Tipsarevic edged past Lapentti 6-4 in the 3rd. Wow, three hours of watching those two sweat sparks some serious impure thoughts. Finally, gotta chime in about the technical side of the coverage. Sometimes they show a low angle, and it's very easy to spot the ball. But when they go back to their usual high angle, yikes! Following the ball is a bit needle in a haystackish.

Nadal does have a tough draw, but it's a little like when Federer got a tough draw at Wimbledon a few years ago. He's been so dominant on clay for three years that you're really bucking the odds to pick against him. He also put up fierce numbers against Ancic, who won only 42% of the points on his serve. Ancic isn't that bad on clay--he made the QF of Roland Garros and the semis at Hamburg a couple years ago.

Ferrer continues to look revived on red dirt, though, and Monfils won again. Nalby's looking good against Rochus and Djokovic had a strong match, so maybe the top men are going to reassert themselves this clay court season. But what's with Fed almost losing to Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo?

Nadal came out here as good or better than last year. Looked really good today, so he'll take a lot of beating. As for Federer: the mono question that's been lingering was explained very well by this post I saw at Tennis Magazine, so I pasted it here. His error count was stunning, with most of those forehand errors. But his forehand depends on his movement to position himself to unleash it. If this post below explains where he is with the illness, you have to wonder how much longer it will take him to fully recover as long as he continues to play:


"I see the Federer-mono question has resurfaced. I think understanding how mono works sheds a lot of light on Fed's situation. Mono is such a difficult disease to recover from since it hides out and infects a person's own immune system--namely, the B-cell lymphocytes which are responsible for a large part a person's immune defense system. When the virus infects them, they can no longer work. So, not only are you sick, the virus has coopted the system which is responsible for making you better. Because the virus 'hides' so well within the system, it often takes the body a long time to start producing virus-specific antibodies to contain it. Therefore, the body must employ CTL cells as it's primary defense. CTLs are basically assassins--they will approach any B-cell they think the virus is hiding in, and destroy it.

So basically, you have a virus attacking your immune system, and then your own body attacking your immune system. This is why mono is so draining. It is also why it can sometimes take so long to recover, as you need to rebuild the body's entire foundation of defense.

According to Fed, he began producing mono antibodies a while ago, meaning he is over the main part of mono, and in the recovery stage. But producing antibodies is not a measure of his immune strength. Basically, he has a 1/2 strength immune system that is having to do all the work. While you might not get 'sick' while recovering from mono, this compromised system now has the job of defending your body from all incidental illnesses. This is what is responsible for a lot of the fatigue and lethargy--your body having to work double-or triple time just to keep you healthy.

I'm not Fed's doctor (obviously) so I have no idea what's going on with him. He could be completely fine, for all I know. BUT this is the traditional course of mono--and the reasons behind it--in case anyone is interested."

I missed Nadal's match but caught the last set of Federer's, and mono or not, it was perplexing.
I've never seen him spray so many balls so quickly with such open indifference. Many forehad errors came as much from running around the backhand as they might have from being a step slow. But just before the rather awful Ramirez-Hidalgo reached 5-1 (I think), Ramirez-Hidalgo did something truly idiotic: He hit an unsuccessful 'tweener passing shot. At that point I knew his Hidalgo was cooked.

Ramirez-Hidalgo got that game, but from then forward, Federer had a new interest in keeping the ball in play. His opponent promptly unraveled, double faulting like Dementieva. And then, around 5-5, when it was obvious Federer was going to win, Federer hit a 'tweener shot back to Hidalgo using a dead (out) ball.

To quote Morrissey, who Roger sometimes looks like, Roger is still ill. It's plain -- and bad -- to see. But I'm not counting him out. The clay season is grueling and extra-compressed this year. A lot could change between now and the last days of Roland Garros.

Rafa may be a raging bull today and Roger a nervous matador, but there's always that heroic tennis-history possibility that Roger will use the clay season to sweat this virus out. Maybe he'll get a lightning bolt of inspiration when it really counts at Roland Garros, while Rafa wears himself out defending points, thanks partly to the dunderhead Fox-asskiss ATP. If Rafa wins RG, he's making history as well, even if US TV and the men it loves don't give a damn. (Querrey won again today, by the way.) And there are other true contenders: Novak and Davydenko followed by Pics and Nalby.

Two things with Roger today. My other half's a big Federer fan, and in his eyes, when Federer was playing well, he was striking the ball more cleanly than he'd remembered Federer ever doing on clay. What I noticed was that when Roger changed the scoreline in a heartbeat the way only he can, it was as much from holding back and being consistent as it was from amazing shots. That's a change. Higueras might be having an influence on Roger's clay approach.

Who knows, though. Monfils awaits, and if he doesn't clown around out there he'll be a tougher opponent than he was in Miami. And that's even before the big rounds.

Good luck to Roger who after beating Monfils in straight sets will face Nalbandian, then possibly Djokovic, then possibly Nadal or Davy...name a nemesis and he's there for him to face, with the exception of Davy though he beat him recently...Fed's not full recovered, that much is clear...but he's getting the right training and sweating playing this tournament, he'll be ready for the FO...i wonder if that bump on his face is due to the virus?

Gosh, poor Martina, getting raked over the coals here for predicting the FO winner...Djokovic is a good choice this far ahead, he's the hot player so far this year. Carry on, Martina! I appreciate your predictions whenever they occur...

I can't believe Sam Querrey made it through to the quarters. When was the last time an American beat three competent clay courters in succession on red dirt?

Don't really see any reason to pick against Nadal at this point.

Martina's entitled to her opinions, though Chrissie's probably count for more in this instance. Predictions are made for touting your faves. In my eyes Novak has a better chance winning a clay Masters or two this season than he does of winning Roland Garros. I can't see him having the extra-set endurance for the latter. As for Monte Carlo, with Querrey up next, possibly followed by a lackluster Roger, Novak's draw is much more appetizing than Nadal's. Ferrer has found his form again and has tested Rafa on clay.

I caught a little of the end of Federer's match today, and the last half of Querrey-Gasquet. Still keep missing Nadal though the commentators said he was the most impressive today. Federer played much better, and it was also more obvious that unlike past years, when he stubbornly tried to maintain the same game on clay, he's now altering his tactics for the surface. He mixed up the pace quite a bit, and is using more topspin on the forehand. But Monfils did himself no favors by staying so far behind the baseline. Nalbandian should be tougher.

Querrey has a great deal of finesse for such a tall guy who serves big. He won one excellent early third-set point -- best I've seen in the tournament -- with a magnificent inside-out angled forehand drop.

The other thing that got him the win was playing smart and letting the weak Gasquet self-destruct. That sure ain't going to happen with Novak though, so Querrey has probably hit the wall. Especially since in some ways his game reminds me of Murray's, who Novak just slammed. The one bit of hope Querrey could take into the match is that he beat the somewhat similar Anderson in the Tennis Channel final and then Anderson beat Djokovic in Miami.

I guess Querrey is the first American since Spadea to make it this far in Monte Carlo, though I'd guess Querrey beat more clay contenders. He seems an obvious choice for Davis Cup if the US has to play Spain in Spain.

I haven't seen any of this tournament, but judging by the scorelines, Nadal, Ferrer, Djokovic and Nalbandian are all in excellent form. I realize Robredo has been way off form this year, but a bagel and a breadstick? Yikes. If that's any indication of what David is doing, Roger's going to have a very rough time tomorrow.

Didn't see Ferrer or Nalbandian. Nadal was himself in the first set, and ruthless in the second. Rafa & Feru have played 4 matches on clay: Ferrer won the first in 2004, Nadal all the rest - most recently last year in Barcelona, in straights.

Federer, for the record, played more Drop Shots in this match than he's played in his whole career. He's never played it much because I think HE thinks its a wuss shot - and when you've got a forehand like his he must have felt he never needed to hit Drop Shots. This has to be the Higueras influence - but whatever the reason, he used it a lot today. He did play better, which isn't saying much given how badly he played yesterday. But he's still not playing great. Since his #1 Ranking is all but assured through Wimbledon, it seems like he's trying to get to The French both physically 100% and with some new weapons in his arsenal - and this clay season for him is target practice. No surprise if Donut Dave takes him down.

Djokovic just outclassed Murray. As if he new every shot Murray was ready to hit and was there in plenty of time for his replies. And here's to Sam Querry - you go man!! You show Djokovic you aint scared of him!! Davydenko was a puzzle, as always. How this guy can dismiss Nadal & Roddick in straights yet struggle mightily against people like Bolelli in Miami and Kohlschreiber here is a mystery. Given the play styles of both, the Davydenko-Andreev Quarterfinal might consume 80% of the broadcast day

Fed played well but Monfils needs to play tougher mentally - he let go. Fed was definitely mixing it up and seemingly practicing different tactics. It was interesting...he may not be completely himself yet but he's thinking clay big time.

Nadal and JCF were neck in neck that first set but JC blinked big time and Nadal was on his way!!

Novak was hot..

Good for Querrey - that's a big win.

I think the german PK is tough - but Davy is a bit of an enigma..

Didn't see any of the Nalbandian match but I'm sure looking forward to his and Fed's showdown...

Top four seeds get through....Fed comes back from losing the first set and crushes Nalbandian 5-7, 6-2, 6-2...

Djokovic shows Querrey his way home finally 6-4, 6-0...great tournament for the young American.a

Apparently Ferrer had his chances against Nadal but faded out...lost in straight sets...

Surprise: It took Davy three long sets to get past Andreev...

Semi's tomorrow will be something to see...I think a Djokovic/Nadal final is on its way...


Martina's predictions are always valid in my mind, and certainly as valid as Chrissie's or anyone else's, and she did win a couple of those FO titles...in fact, TTC is showing her big 1984 win over Chrissie on Sunday night...beginning a five week sunday series of big FO finals leading up to Roland Garros...

The first French final TTC showed was the Agassi def Medvedev one, which they've framed in a manner that connects to Federer's quest for all 4 slams. All I'm saying about Chris is that with 7 titles to Martina's 2, she might understand what it takes to win at Roland Garros as well as any living player save maybe Borg. It's arguable, though.

With zero French Opens to my name, I've been having this weird feeling that Federer has a better chance this year than the last three, and whatever happens (I'm thinking a loss) against Novak tomorrow might not matter much. Federer's whole approach is markedly different than it has been the last few clay seasons. I have a feeling that if he has the opportunity to make another Roland Garros final, he's going to throw everything but the kitchen sink -- the whole magic act -- at his opponent, especially if that opponent turns out to be all-too-familiar and now much more aggressive Nadal.

Against Nalbandian, Federer's backhand not only wasn't a liability, it was an asset. And his shot selections continue to be a lot more playful and varied. Nalbandian was mentally weak today though. Not much fight in him -- Federer converted every single break point he got. And Nalbandian hits a flatter ball than Djokovic, so Roger's backhand will be tested more tomorrow.

Nadal had a 3-game twice-broken hiccup against Ferrer, but it was framed by longer stretches where he won 6 out of 7 and 7 out of 9 games. Against a player who has had his number recently, it's impressive. The one thing Ferrer showed to anyone who hopes to beat Nadal on clay is that on the deuce side, a serve that takes Rafa out wide can set up a crosscourt forehand winner every time. Both Federer and Djokovic have the opportunity to do that. Especially Novak, who served at 80% today. I'm gonna hold to the idea that Novak has a better chance of winning Monte Carlo or Italy than Roland Garros. I'll happily eat crow if that isn't the case.

The top 4 players have all met their seeding/ranking here. For whatever reason, it seems they're collectively more committed than they were during the spring US hard court tournaments.

Wow, I guess sometimes rankings and seedings actually mean something, huh? Caught only the first few games of the Nalbandian/Federer match, but can't say I'm surprised by the result since Dave is still pounding the donuts. What with lugging around that 20-pound spare tire, there's no way David N. beats Roger, even with the post-mono malaise. Speaking of fitness, Sam Querrey has recently hooked up with Gil Reyes. This was a terrific tournament for Querrey, beating three European claycourters to get to the QFs. When was the last time an American male beat a top-tenner on red clay?? Judging from Novak's form going into their QF, I fully expected the Serb to beat Querrey, and yuppers, he thumped him. But many more good things will start happening for Querrey if he sticks with Gil Reyes. Um, hear that, Donut Dave?

Davydenko made it to the semis, but is the most unconvincing player left in the tournament. That remarkable consistency he displayed in Miami is nowhere to be found in Monte Carlo. But who knows? Davy played Rafa very tough in Rome last year. Can't wait to see the Ferrer/Nadal match. It sounds like David played Rafa tough in the 2nd set, but blew the set points he had. And if there's one player on clay who will make sure you pay for blowing your opportunities, it's Rafa.

I'm also predicting a Djokovic vs. Rafa final. As well as Novak has been playing so far (even though red clay isn't his best surface, he's looked awesome in his matches so far), there's no way I'm going against Rafa in the final. But one has to wonder if both Roger and Rafa are to some degree saving themselves for Roland Garros. Roger is fighting that post-mono malaise and knows he can't kill himself in the run-up to RG. As much as the red clay ranking points mean to Rafa, he is all too aware of the compressed red clay schedule. Circumstances are such that both players are extra cautious this year about showing up in Paris burnt and spent. That's why I think Novak can sneak in and win one of the three claycourt Masters Series. I just don't think it will be Monte Carlo.

Again I saw Federer make very effective use of the Drop Shot against Nalbandian, especially in the 3rd Set. A good sign to me was that he actually got better as the match went on instead of Nalbandian getting worse. So Roger's fitness isn't dipping. As for Nadal, his first set was lopsided due more to Ferrer coming out looking like he didn't really believe he could win. Self prophecy fulfilled - he got shellacked in about 25 minutes. Their second set shows why Nadal has been the #2 guy in the world for as long as he has. Many other guys have more aesthetically pleasing strokes they developed in a bunch of high-falutin' tennis academies and showed them off on The Junior Circuit. But Rafa has the mental fortitude they don't. Can you imagine coming back not only from being down 2 breaks, but also facing 3 Set Points, and then win the match in straights? We see recoveries like that from him too frequently for it to be considered merely a stroke of bad luck for his opponent. There are plenty of artistic ball strikers that would trade their beautiful hitting for a match-playing intellect like Nadal's. They'd win a lot more.

I know it's conventional wisdom based on how they've played this week, but I'm not yet ready to hand Djokovic a spot in the Final even though he's played better tennis than Federer. Federer doesn't like Djokovic much, compounded even more after all the public slamming he endured from the Djokovic family after Australia. He won't want to lose to Djokovic twice in a row. I'll expect him to go for the Djokovic Throat here - whether that will be enough is the obvious question. In a way Federer would be less concerned losing to Nadal in a Final than he would losing to Djokovic tomorrow, or to Davydenko should he make it there after the non-handshake in Estoril.

Speaking of settling scores, Nadal's pretty good at that too. And he'll be out for his own revenge against Davydenko. One thing I noticed about Nadal here is that he's staying pretty glued to the baseline on his serve games, while still playing back on his return games. It's like he's tempting guys to come in on him when they serve, and the results have been pretty good: he hasn't lost a set. I'm thinkin' Nadal gets through this one - and I'll go against the CW and take Federer against Djokovic.

Some great points that I agree with wholeheartedly: Fed is focused on the FO and he's definitely trying different tactics and quite successfully so far...this coach thing is looking good!

vm - and so right about Nadal, his mental fortitude is amazing!!!

With the addition of Djokovic, this clay court season is looking HOT - Nadal, Fed and Novak all going for it big time!

On clay and grass, Nadal's mental fortitude is amazing. His astonishing record speaks for itself. On hardcourt, after watching Nadal wave the white flag against Djokovic in Indian Wells, I'm withholding judgment. On the flip side of the Monte Carlo QF, David Ferrer's lack of mental fortitude is, well, not exactly something that inspires amazement. Serving for the 2nd set at 5-4, 40-love, Ferrer double faulted, hit a drop shot that almost landed at the service line, and then smacked a forehand into the bottom of the net. After that collapse, players on both sides of the net knew the match was over. David's dearth of self-belief disappoints fans (like me) who love him for his personality. It's no great shock that David used to describe himself as "the worst player in the top 100."

Regarding Federer and the drop shot, I'm guessing he didn't like it much in the past because it is kind of a wuss shot (hear that, Novak?). But after losing the 1st set to Donut Dave, he probably smacked himself upside the head and hit the drop shot as much as possible - "run that down, Tubby! " Seriously though, Roger has said the reason he doesn't come into the net that much is he hates to give his opponent a chance to win the point with one shot whereas by staying back, he forces the other guy to beat his footspeed and forehand, both the best in the game. Hitting a drop shot gives his opponent the same opportunity. But against Nalbandian, the drop shot is a very smart play because a player lugging around a ~20-pound spare tire probably won't get to most of them. Plus getting beat time and time again with the drop shot just kills a player's confidence and self-belief.

Someone on tennistalk pointed out an interesting aspect of the QFs - how often is it that the number 1 and 2 players in the world go into a round where they both lost their last two matches against their respective opponents? It's gotta be the first time it's happened since Federer and Nadal became #1 and 2.

what a f**king loser djokovic is. he realizes he's about to lose the match, so he pulls the "i'll retire first" bullshit.

Djokovic continues to astound me with his bratty ways. For all the talk of wanting to be number one in the world, he just doesn't get it.

It's so great to see Federer rebounding a bit here. There's really not a more beautiful game to watch...on clay or any other surface. The commentators alluded to the fact that Federer needs to be more aggressive on some of his second serve returns and I totally agree. It seems as if he stubbornly wants to play like a typical clay-courter rather than assert himself early in the rally like we know he can. Hopefully, Jose Higueras will convince him he can and should do it.

BTW, maybe I missed the discussion, but what's that welt on Roger's face? A bee sting or something?

Mirka caught roger and me in a ...situation. let's just say she has a mean right hook.

I've never seen a bee sting welt last a couple of weeks...he's had this for a while. I wonder if his body is detoxifying or something.

He's playing very well...Fed looks very dialed in. The final will be 'must see' tennis...

Davy could only hold serve four of nine games against Nadal!

Some random observations....

WWCD, nice to see you back! I guess the lure of clay season was too much for you to pass up.

I'd root for Fed against Djokovic (or any one, for that matter) any day, but I wouldn't be so hard on Novak. Not every 20~year old can have the maturity and class of Nadal; give him some time.

As promising as Roger's play has looked, I still don't have a lot of hope for the FO. Unless he's completely over mono by then, I think he'll just get worn down by having to grind out that many matches on the red clay.

Nalbandian appalls me. I cannot for the life of me understand elite athletes who refuse to pass up Krispy Kreme. But there are lots of them (I'm thinking mainly in the NBA, where fitness is as key as it is in tennis). Why would you forsake the glory of major titles and extra millions just because you were too lazy to get down to a reasonable playing weight? Unless you've got some major demons in your life (e.g., Monica), it is just inexplicable to me.

Thought this line about waving white flags was appropriate in light of what happened today

I'll try to be as respectful as I can to the Djokovic devotees here, but the truth is respect is something Djokovic doesn't deserve. Here are his last 3 High Profile retirements (among his 6 or 7 overall) in a Tour Match: 2006 French 4th Round to Nadal, down 2 Sets to love (then told the press he felt "in control" of that match ); 2007 Wimbledon Semi to Nadal (a blister supposedly - which by the way Rudy - Nadal at IW this year was also treated for a blister during his Semi with Djokovic, yet Rafa decided it was best to finish that match, depsite the beating; maybe a lesson for your sweetheart to learn from, no? ); and now today to Federer. Hmm..his last three high profile retirements to the guys ranked 1 & 2 in the world; always when he's losing to them. Interesting.

When I think about Sampras losing his 2000 AO Semi to Agassi playing with a torn groin muscle - he finished the match (not to mention his 2000 run at Wimbledon on 1 leg & vomitting on the court at the 96 US Open); when I think of Federer playing Canas at IW last year with blisters on both feet - he finished the match; when I think of Nadal laying on the ground in tendonitis agony against Ferrer at last years US Open - he finished the match. And there are countless other examples. Quitting is for wusses. Unless your are LITERALLY gonna die out there, you finish. It's pure disrespect for your opponent to rob them of a win because you're too insecure to handle the loss. Take the loss no matter what it is, then go off to fight another day. Unless... you have other motives for quitting. And it's becoming much more obvious that Djokovic clearly does.

It's obvious that Djokovic, Inc. wants any losses to Federer or Nadal marked with some kind of asterisk excuse - something to the effect of "Well, I would have won had I been able to keep playing, but I had to quit, so the loss really doesn't count". And since Djokovic, Inc. is a publicity seeking operation, they count on their apologists to make that connection for them. As an example, I give you Cliff Drysdale, who STILL insists that had Djokovic not had to retire at last years Wimbledon, why, he SURELY would have beaten Nadal & played the Final. This is exactly the response Djokovic, Inc. counts on when he quits. Remember, the Djokovic, Inc. PR Narrative coming out of Australia this year is that HE is truly the #1 player in the world despite what the rankings say (evidenced by all that "King [Federer] is Dead" garbage). That's a real hard spin to buy into if you lose outright to the 2 guys ranked above you. So, to keep the PR Narrative alive & well - you quit when losing to either of them. Drysdale proves it worked - for the moment. But that kind of spin doctoring has a limited shelf life.

Someone needs to tell Djokovic to Man Up - take the losses, and move forward from them. I'll bet significant money there were MANY snickers of laughter within the ATP Tour when the players found out Djokovic quit - again. Quitting will have the effect of Djokovic losing any fear factor he might have in the locker room. When no one's afraid of you they play you better, especially if they think you'll quit when they get on top of you (i.e., when you've proven to them you can be a wuss). I wouldn't be surprised at all if he starts getting peppered with more losses. Also wouldn't surprise me if when he next appears to play he gets booed & jeered. And this effect too: he's gonna lose support among even his die hard followers - NOBODY likes a quitter. Especially one that's quitting with such obvious designs when doing so.

As anyone here knows I had little repsect personally for Djokovic before today. After today I have even less, because I think his calculations are as transparent as glass. He's a phony - and may he get his comeuppance very soon.

Well said, Voicemail. And thanks LarryC for the "Welcome Back"! It's nice to be here.

I think the "Give him some time to mature" excuse for Novak has grown tired. If you're mature enough to say you're really the best player in the world, then you should be mature enough not to continually quit when you're down. As far as I know, there was exactly one visit from a doctor during this semi-final. Did the doctor advise that he was seriously jeopardizing his health if he continued playing? I doubt it. He just didn't want to be there anymore, didn't want to get beaten legitimately.

What bothers me the most is that Novak's behavior propagates the stereotype, especially in this country, that tennis isn't a "real sport". We all know that basketball, baseball and football get the majority of the coverage with the perception being that tennis is for "wimps." Novak is a wimp.

Yes, WWCD, it's good to have you back! Now all we need is an argument between you and mdterp to solidify your return.

I don't know if Djokovic has Heninitis, or if Henin got Djokovitis, but I agree, it's low rent, and I don't like it. You agree to step onto the court that day, knowing your physical condition, you show some respect to your opponent and the crowd who paid for their tickets and you finish the match, and as long as the playing doesn't threaten your long term health and career, you take your loss with dignity.

With all the lack of graciousness in losing, the retro-active excuses, and the match retirements, lately, I'm starting to think sportsmanship is becoming a second class citizen in professional tennis these days.

Thanks, Tennis Guy. Note that I stayed clear of the posts regarding Richard Williams views of Chris Evert. Just too easy! And besides I've been reading that Oprah book "A New Earth." I'm much calmer now.

I never thought i'd say this, but watching the stuff that Novak tries to pull makes me appreciate.... Rafael.

Yes, Nadal can be irritating with the wedgies, and the tics and other idiosyncrasies, but the one thing that's never called into his question is his guts. Unless he's incapacitated , he will fight to the very last point.

I completely agree, snicks. I'm not a huge Rafa fan either, but behavior like Novak's gives me a different perspective on Nadal. And Maria too. They're always gonna give you their best, even on days when they don't particularly feel like it.

I'm not sure how this fits into this thread but I've been reading this book by Jim Loehr, that sports psychology guy. And he says that great performance can be triggered by great acting. Essentially, he says, if you act confident and positive, your body and your game will respond accordingly.

During Davis Cup, the commentators were talking about James Blake's negative attitude and Justin Gimelstob defended him saying that if that's how he feels then he has to show it. Justin said, "James is not an actor; he's a tennis player."

That same weekend, Maria won her first clay court tournament. She had some long matches and after one of them, Mary Jo asked her if she was tired because she didn't look it. Maria said, "Really? I must be a good actress then!"

I thought it was interesting. Perhaps, it's acting ability that separates the good (Blake) from the great (Sharapova).

As for the Final tomorrow - man, it's a tough one to pick. Not only has Federer been using the Drop Shot very well throughout the week, but I noticed today he's starting to hit his Forehand with an almost "half-reverse angle" whip-up. Not as much as Nadal or Sharapova, but he's on his way there. He's clearly trying to put more topspin on his Forehand - which makes me think he's using a little more synthetic string in his composition to get the topspin he wants. Higueras is helping in a very good way. Roger's a man on a mission!

As for Nadal, no surprise should he win it. He's looked better than Federer this week, but that's to be expected on clay. Scary to think after today he's won his last 98 of 99 matches on this stuff - amazing!! I think it's more important for Rafa to win the First Set if he's gonna take the title again. That would make Federer look at an uphill slog that might take 3 hours - which plays right into Rafa's hands. It's a pick 'em I think, with Rafa getting a 65-70% probability to win if he takes the first set, and Federer 65-70% if he does. Feeling good that this one goes three sets - so I hope the match is a barn burner!!

I agree that Djokovic should have finished out the match. Even if he wasn't feeling well, he wasn't dying, or anywhere even close. What's the worst that happens? Roger runs out the rest of the games and wins 6-3 6-2. Not exactly, as they say in Monte Carlo, la fin du monde. But gotta say, I don't understand the vehemence of feeling toward Novak. Did you launch a scorched-earth vituperation toward Venus and Serena with all their iffy pullouts early in their careers? Both Williams have since figured things out. Serena had that miserable toothache in Melbourne and required oral surgery after the tourney yet finished out a match she had zero hope of winning. Venus was so hampered by her hip that she couldn't hit a serve over 90 mph (when her 1st serve is often ~120) yet also finished out her match. I used to roll my eyes at their retirements, but it's not like my head exploded or anything. Comme les soeurs, I'm giving Novak a little time to figure things out too. To his credit, the guy is a quick study. He actually told his box to quiet down (not an easy thing for a 20-year-old to tell his parents), surely in response to criticism for his box's over-the-top-ness at previous events. By the way, it wasn't just a blister that Novak had at Wimbledon last year. More like his feet were raw hamburger, and it devastated him to retire. Rafa didn't have a blister at Indian Wells. I listened to his postmatch interview in Spanish, and his nail was feeling pinched in his shoe. It obviously didn't bother him much because after he was denied a medical timeout because it wasn't a changeover, he didn't bother asking again. He admitted he just didn't have it, fisicamente y tenisticamente (love that word) - in other words, he waved the white flag (referring specifically to his preposterous drop shot attempt that handed Novak an insurance break in the 2nd set). Anyway, should Novak have finished out the match today? Absolutely!! Marian Vajda should make Novak watch his idol Sampras's victory over Alex Corretja at the 1996 USO. Show a little sack, pal. On the other hand, is this retirement something to get apoplectic over? Nah, but if you choose to, I guess it's a free country.

Even though I am in no position to second-guess Pete Sampras, gotta say, I disagree with the decision to finish out matches like that 6-1 5th set loss to Agassi in the USO semis. Continuing in that situation risked serious long-term injury (it can take forever to recover from a groin injury), and in my opinion, the best course of action is to retire. Had Pete retired, Andre would have understood and I can't imagine he would have felt "dissed" in any way. Most fans in the stadium would have understood, and for the few who wouldn't, too damn bad. Even a USO semi is just a tennis match. I do not want to see a player out for like a year because he felt some noble duty to play out a match there was no point in finishing.

The unfortunate thing is that up until Novak's retirement, it was a terrific tennis match. In a new wrinkle in this rivalry, Novak at one point had won 12 of 15 net approaches. On red clay. Against Federer! But Fed was the real story in this match. For the first time this year, Roger looked like he was at full speed. Even in matches he won, Roger always looked a half-step slow (a full step in some losses). But today he was moving like Vintage Federer, and man oh man, it was a beautiful sight. Roger was getting to everything, making very few errors, and either pinning the ball in the corners or sweeping the clay off the sidelines. He was playing so well that at 4-3 in the 1st, you could almost feel Novak's knees buckling under the pressure. Even if Novak can't see it right now, that's when the match was won.

As for Cliff Drysdale's shameless shilling for Djokovic, Inc., let's face it, those ESPN guys will do anything to boost ratings. If you're a devoted Roger or Rafa fan, you probably can't understand, but for the rest of us, men's tennis got boringisimo. As CNN/SI's Weirtheim put it, it's almost like Roger and Rafa came to a detente: you rule the clay, I rule everything else. And frankly, the rest of the field was barely playing in the same league. In tennis, the most ultra-competitive of sports because there's no guaranteed income, it felt like there was no competition ... zzzzzzzz. Along comes a youngster who looks like he can finally break the Roger & Rafa duopoly. The kid's got (in the opinion of some) good English, loads of personality, good looks, and most important, the brash arrogance to believe he can challenge and eventually surpass the top two. Boom! all of a sudden, tennis gets interesting again. Despite being a devoted tennis fan since the Borg/McEnroe era, the doldrums of the duopoly almost caused me to stop watching men's tennis altogether. I started following tennis with the passion of old because of Novak. Surely the ESPN shills figured out that there were plenty of other tennis fans who felt the same way.

*Your post basically speaks of this retirement as though it were an isolated incident, when it's really been a pattern of them - and I still maintain a pattern with explicit purpose other than genuine injury.

*Djokovic "devastated" retiring at Wimbledon? We all saw him walking off the court smiling that day as if he'd won it - eliciting comments from Johnny Mac that it's not the smart thing to do when you quit (suggesting even JMac had suspicions about that retirement). "...feet were raw hamburger.." - I wonder, did you see them?

*Nadal certainly did have a medical time out at IW during the changeover, for 3 minutes. Having been there to see it, I know what I'm talking about.

*Just for clarity: the Sampras groin injury against Agassi was in the Australian Open, not the US Open.

*Don't know what Quitovic said to his parents - but the footage of FEDERER having to tell them to be quiet was all over the place yesterday. Showing again how classlessness for these people is obviously genetic.

It's OK for you to excuse him - as long as you're aware that's it's just that: excusing.

Wow, watching an internet scoreboard sure is exciting!

Lack of coverage is so sad. All this time I figured I could have watched things I was missing on the Tennis Channel, however, it turns out my cable company doesn't even offer it.

But hey, there's no audience for Masters Cup ATP tennis, right?

Looks like Rafa just got the first set, I'll have to imagine what it was like.

So what happened? I had to pull myself away from the oh-so-captivating online scoreboard when Roger was up 4-1 in the second, and the next thing I see when I return, Rafa's up 5-4?!

Says Nadal just took it, 7-5, 7-5.

Federer's meltdown in the 2nd Set was both puzzling and painful to watch. Nadal played OK - but Federer played REALLY badly. I noticed something today I hadn't heard up to now - I heard Federer huffing, puffing and moaning during points, as if the effort of just staying in a rally was draining him. Maybe I'd hear that deep in the 5th Set of a Major from him occasionally, but even then Federer's fitness usually always got him through. I got the feeling that had he played a 3rd Set today it might have turned into a really ugly score line for him. Maybe the 3 Setters against Hidalgo & Nalbandian caught up with him.

The good thing for Nadal is that with the title monkey off his back in 2008, he'll probably loosen up a little. And for all his complaining about the compressed schedule, why is he playing doubles too, then? You'd think if he was genuinely concerned about the amount of tennis he needs to play in 4 weeks time, he might wanna back off having to do double duty. Interesting to see if he continues to play it throughout the clay stretch up to the French.

You mean the impressions? If you call that "personality".

Roger was actually up 4-0 in the 2nd set. I am so disapointed in him, but that's tennis. Nadal's record on clay--97/98 is phenomenal! I wonder if Borg's was better.... I bet one of you knows.

So much about the Fed just doesn't compute, lately. The whole mono thing still isn't sitting well with me. If it were full blown, I think we all know Fed would have needed quite some time off due to how it incapacitates you, and the long amount of time it takes to recover from it. But the whole "mild case" thing has me wondering as well. Even with "mild cases" you're advised from exerting yourself (you know, like playing ATP tour level tennis). But a mild case that allows you to play almost two full weeks in a slam and other full weeks of all-out tennis (and the traveling and practicing, and press conferences, etc...) afterwards? Doesn't sound like a symptom (or remedy) that makes much sense to me.

Another thing that doesn't seem to compute is his concentration level. Until this year, I've never seen so many loose points from him, especially off his lately-spraying forehand. Others who have posted here may have attributed it to downright lack of interest, if not apathy, but the result has been the same, whether it's his concentration or even his interest in being out there, the focus just isn't there. It's that very unwavering focus and fight that's made him so dominant for the last 4 years. Mild mono or not, his head seems to be somewhat missing.

As for Rafa, I agree that it doesn't make sense for him to complain about scheduling and then playing doubles as well. If he does it here, but not other events in the near future, I'd chalk it up to maybe his desire to work on his net game and the fact that he probably thought he wouldn't make it too deep in the doubles draw to detract from his singles. But if he does enter the doubles in all these upcoming clay events over the next month or so, he really does need to pick a lane.