Hmm...didn't see the match but kudos to Murray for taking Nadal to a tiebreaker on clay. Still won't be enough to do anything over the course of the clay season against Nadal, and certainly not in a best of 5 at the French.

Djoko vs Nadal. The Djoko match vs Stan looked like a good one by the scoreline. Missed that one too.

Stan, Stan, Stan. When I left the room you were up a break in the 3rd Set 2-0. When I got back to the match Djokovic reeled off four straight games on you. What's up with that? I know you had the plan mapped out: serve to his backhand and then come in and hit behind him. For the most part it worked, until your own backhand went south in the 3rd. Good tournament - but let's see that brilliant shot making when it counts the most, OK?

And Andy: Jolly Good Show, Mate!! I bet you thought you had that 2nd Set for a minute or two, huh? Looked like it, until the tiebreak started. By the middle of it your fate became more clear because we could see your legs getting heavier and heavier and heavier with each step of each point. So I'm thinking even if you pulled out the set, what would a 3rd Set have been like for you? That's the thing about playing Rafael on clay. He's the Energizer Bunny on that stuff. Not a plethora of winnners, just a minimum of errors. The same spin & velocity on just about every shot. And he can keep that up ad infinitum. You played for over two hours today and completed two sets and didn't win either of them. How's that Best of 5 Sets on Parisian clay lookin' to you about now?

And to Novak: great show to get to the Final here to gain some points and keep that bulldog Murray behind you for a little while longer. About tomorrow. You handle the topspin that will undoubtedly come to your backhand very well - better than most. That will help you a lot. But a word of advice: have your inhaler handy.

Bravo to Murray. Great stuff from him second half of the second set. The best clay tennis I've seen against Nadal in years, maybe ever, even if 1) yes, he lost; 2) it would be hard to sustain.

Murray's improving greatly though. He definitely is outperforming my expectations of him on clay, in that straight-set victory over Davydenko too. Looking forward to more matches between him and Nadal on all surfaces. When both of them are playing top flight against each other, it's a cut way above everyone else right now.

Two-hander, I don't know if it's the best clay tennis against Nadal in years. I think it's more like 10 months -- Novak played some spectacular tennis against Rafa in the 3rd set of their 2008 Roland Garros semifinal. But alas, Novak also lost; and even if he had won the tiebreak, he probably wouldn't have been able to sustain that level. Nonetheless, congrats to Murray for some terrific tennis. He's already shown vast improvement over last year, when he could barely win a match on the red stuff.

Stan and Novak had a good, but far from great, match. They did have some killer rallies, though. At the beginning, Stan was winning most of the long rallies but from love-2 in the 3rd, Novak won almost all the 20-30 ball rallies. So Novak's fitness and stamina are actually pretty good, as long as the temperature's in the 60s Also, most of Stan's aggressive shots were hitting the lines earlier on but were landing just out in the 3rd. Stan said he was awfully disappointed about the loss, but he should walk away from Monte Carlo feeling pretty good about his overall performance. Even if Fed isn't The Federer any more, dude, you still beat Roger Federer!

Let's be honest: everybody thinks Novak has about a 5% (or less) chance of beating Rafa. So hopefully Novak goes out there and swings away, knowing he has nothing to lose. I just hope it's a good match and that Novak can at least be happy about his quality of play. If he does lose to Rafa (which everybody does on clay, unless the guy's fatigued or injured), he should be proud about his victories over Verdasco and Wawrinka, not exactly a couple of terre battue chumps.

Well from the looks of the score, it was a good match. I won't spoil it here. Can't find any news or interviews at all, so maybe the match just ended.

You're right, Rudy, and Novak Djokovic proved it today. I get hyperbolic. I was a bit carried away by the caliber of play at the end yesterday and by how much Murray does seem to have improved on clay. With Novak, even when he is dominating Nadal on clay, you wonder more if he can maintain, because of his breathing issues. Or at least I do. But again, you're right, in the last year or two, Novak is the only one to take clay sets from Rafa and really frazzle his nerves and piss him off out there. (Hamburg might have been his best on clay last year.)

I only caught the final from the end of the second set on, but Novak, frankly, was playing more inspired tennis and more fun to watch -- when he was in the match. This was one of Rafa's winning ugly victories. He seems to have them more against Novak -- I would count the Beijing semi last year as another. Have to hand it to Rafa for his fortitude in such matches, but his tennis today was meh to look at. Weak serves, and the forehand seems to be going out of control at times as of late.

Novak had a lot of bad luck with net cords and the like. Nadal really knows how to squeeze the life out of an opponent with those marathon games. The first 3 games of the last set were something like 42 minutes overall. That's just crazy.

The thing is, those pivotal games could have been over a lot quicker and with Novak winning more of them if Novak didn't make so many careless errors when in command. Errors off return of serve especially. That's how it looks. But there must be something else to it -- like exhaustion every other point. And the fact that Rafa is a lot tougher to get points from when he's serving on the ad side than on the deuce. (Just ask Federer. )

Novak seems to be finding his game again. Maybe the nipple tassels help? Even the Smurfette shoes aren't a curse -- though Monte Carlo is all about wardrobe malfunctions. Murray's ill-fitting shorts were screwing with his service routine in the semi. In the final today, the collar of Nadal's shirt was a mess.

Curse the lack of coverage!!! I couldn't even find any online feeds.


There seems to be a changing of the clay guard. While before it seemed to be Rafa only, with the Fed able to be doing the "bothering," now it seems to be Rafa with Novak and Murray doing the "bothering." It's amazing, to me anyway, that the Djoke and Murray have been the ones to "supplant" the Fed on this surface, at least.

And I may just be premature in making this proclamation. Look how long this final lasted, and it was just three sets. How will the Djoke handle it when it's best of five? Or Murray for that matter? Granted, I'm sure Nole will handle the tough longer battles much better when he's winning but I need more convincing that he can win multiple four and five set matches. Keep in mind, his only non-3-set match at last year's FO (until losing in straight sets to Rafa in the semis) was in the first round, and he won it in four sets. And for perspective, the toughest opponent he had to face was (on paper) 19th ranked Mathieu in the 4th round, and from a practicality/momentum standpoint, maybe 80th ranked-but-on-fire Gulbis in the quarters. (And we thought the Fed had an easy draw that got easier! ) But what will the Djoke do if/when some player really challenges him and takes sets off of him? Yes, it's a testament to his clay ability that he could beat so many guys in straight sets, but is it really a safe bet that that will happen again this year?

Murray to me is even more of a wild card. He hasn't had a lot of success in the past at the FO, but this year is brand new, and these results speak volumes.

I think what happens in the next month will be crucial. I haven't projected the math or the rankings, but if the Fed falls to #3 (I'd still need to check if that's even a possibility), things will be interesting in how the landscape will change among "the pack." Can you imagine the Fed having to play Rafa in a semi? While it's lately been a possibility that he could meet the Djoke or Murray in a semi anyway, it would make you wonder would it would do to all the "draw-dynamics" and players' psyches when the Fed is introduced as #3 in the world.

Two-Hander: Djokovic has always fared better than most against Nadal on clay. More so than Federer, for the obvious reason that the Djokovic backhand withstands the relentless pounding that side gets much better the Federer's single handed version. That said, Nadal plays Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko much differently. Nadal can attack more against Federer - and does so almost at will these days. He doesn't against the other three on clay. He makes it a war of attrition against all of them. It was abundantly clear against Murray yesterday - you could see Andy's legs were totally gone by the end of the tiebreak. Same thing for Djokovic here. By the time the opening three games of the third set were over, Novak's lungs had been seared - Nadal's mission accomplished. Conversely, Nadal's shots actually started penetrating further as the match wore on. Remarkable in itself - but even more so when you add this nugget of info Robbie Koenig passed out on the telecast: Nadal was out on the pratice court for 1 full hour before the match started. That's just insane.

Nadal pulls far too many of these kinds of matches out for it to be coincidental. He knows when he goes out on a clay court against anyone he's gonna win - he deeply understands his game to that extent. Sampras had the same swagger, as did Federer when they both were dominant on their best surfaces. Nadal's plan seems to be to administer a punishment so bruising to his biggest threats on the tour that when he plays the same guys over the next time or two, that bruising is still fresh in their heads. Nowadays, with the World #1 confidence, he can now choose the precise moment to step up the brutality. That's what he did today. And yesterday.

What's scary is that statistically, he didn't play this tournament as cleanly as he did last year. He went through several patches in his early rounds where he'd lose 10-12 points in a row. And even with that, he still only lost 1 Set in 5 Rounds. In fact I have deep suspicions that if it's going too well, he might even throttle down a little to "lure them in" before he steps it up. Give Djokovic and Murray a false sense of hope, plus a lot more slogging around on the court before inching ahead again - always keeping the match out of their reach, but only barely. It leaves guys walking away thinking they did all they could do and it still wasn't enough. Lendl and Agassi did that to numerous foes quite a bit, given how fit they both were (they used to call Agassi "The Punisher"). As long as Rafael can hit his shots with the consistency of a metronome 80% of the time, and keep his unparalelled footwork where it is now, he's learned he only needs to be at full capacity for a short window during every match. That's what this tournament showed - his choosing of when to inflict the damage. Since these guys can't serve him or power him off a clay court - they just have no place to get their points from Nadal unless he starts spraying errors by the truckload. Talk about a tough gig.

Yeah. And contemporary France seems worse than the US when it comes to race. Appearance-wise, look who is leading our country and who is leading theirs. Or they're in a race to be more messed up in terms of prejudice and oppression doled out by the legal system.

I love it that you brought up Fognini. He is drag-ish! Like JFK Jr. with Kim Novak/Divine eyebrows. I don't know what the hell he was wearing on his face for sunblock at times this past week.

Yup. Nadal had Djoko right where he wanted him after Djoko won that second set. Nadal was licking his chops. This man is a BEAST on clay. Its ridiculous. So amazing!! How do you beat him in a best of 5 match on clay when a best of 3 is that taxing? How? I know they say never say never but I'm saying NEVER!! Not at this point!! Who out there has the clay skills PLUS the stamina to do it? None of the rest of the top 5 for sure. The other ones not in the top 5 who are better "clay court specialists" won't be able to get it done either.

I didn't catch the Fognini-Murray match, but I remember Fognini well from last year's clay court circuit. He sported some Joan Crawford-esque stretchy headwrap that would look great with a cold cream appliqué and shimmery pale pink kimono. And yeah those eyebrows are something else, and not in a good way.

So basically Rafa and Djoko recreated their gruelling Hamburg clash of last year, with almost the same scoreline. (I will note that just as with that match, damp overcast conditions were a big help to what otherwise would have been the usual wilting violet Djoko under a sweltering sun.) Only these two guys can turn a 6-3, 2-6, 6-1 match into a three-hour titanic struggle, with about 60 minutes of it being their pre-serving rituals alone. Nah, it seemed like every other game went to multiple deuces. That last set has to be the most nerve-wracking breadstick set in history. There are entire matches that don't have as many momentum swings and rallies of attrition as just that whole 2-1 three-game swing (which was apparently 45 minutes alone as pointed out above) which started it off. Basically, it's about what we expected, and as I predicted the clay has ushered Djoko back to actual as well as titular No 3 status, so I'm glad he hung onto the ranking for another week. However, Murray looks like he will be able to carry over most of his 2009 form onto the red stuff; he was really convincing in his QF and SF and that will give him confidence going forward.

Meanwhile, Rafa is in an ever strong position No 1-wise as Fed dropped most of his MC final points and presumably Rafa will be able to string a couple of matches together in Rome this time, where he has nothing to defend. That takes some of the pressure off so he can take it easy if his knees or blisters need it. Well done to him on his five-time title streak, the first time he's managed that feat - it certainly seems Roland Garros will also be a five-timer. Oh, and it's also his 14th Masters title - five of those have come on hard courts, a solid third of the tally (along with three finalist finishes). When will he learn to play on hard courts already?

As long as I'm nattering away here about rankings and such, a certain Mr Safin has just inched back in the Top 20 for the first time since January 2006. Just in time for retirement!

To win five in a row of any Masters Series title is amazing. To win five in a row of a Slam (which barring physical impairment of some sort, Rafa is sure to do in early June) is utterly mind-boggling. I can't think of any player who dominated a surface so completely except maybe Chris Evert's unbeaten streak on clay back in the 70s (wasn't really watching tennis back then, just played it). Congratulations to Rafa! Long may he reign!

It says a lot about Rafa's dominance that making it to the final and taking a set from Rafa are really the most a player can expect. Maybe just maybe one of these days, Andy M or Novak will be able to string together two good sets against Rafa and pull off a massive upset. But against a 90-95% (forget a 100%) Rafa, winning three sets to upset him at Roland Garros seems about as likely as picking the lottery numbers. Novak had a very good tournament. Besides his terrific play in the final, he beat a couple of strong claycourters along the way and even made it to the semis of the dubs, winning a set from eventual champs Nester & Zimonjic. Whether Novak is #3 or #4, his place amongst the Big 4 is once again secure. As a fan, I'm just happy as hell he's found consistency with his groundstrokes. All too often with this new racket, Novak's forehand has been a fright (he literally couldn't hit three forehands in a rally against Simon in Dubai), and at times even his mechanically sound backhand has gone awry.

Glad to see Nestor/Zimonjic take the title. After three 1st-round losses and a 2nd round loss at the Australian, 2009 was looking a bit rough for 2008's #1 doubles team.

Are you referring to just clay? Roger Federer perhaps. 5 straight Wimbledon titles (2003-2007). The grass season is so short so that makes his streak of Wimbledon wins pretty impressive as well.

And do not forget Bjorn Borg's five straight at Wimbledon 1976-80.

Borg also won six French titles and had he not missed in 1977 he would have won seven in a row.

That's what made Borg's presence at some of these Federer-Nadal jousts an extra bit of drama or justice.

I think it's safe to say that there just isn't the excitement among media or tennis orthodoxy or general public about Rafa going for five in a row at the French. Roger has had a much more appealing public image. Plus his game on grass in particular delivers quick wow moments, while Nadal's on clay has been about extended beatdowns.

The one thing Rafa does have distinct if he pulls off #5 in Roland Garros this year is that he'd be the first player to win the same slam 5 times in a row without ever having lost at the tournament. We'll see.

I take back some of my criticism of Nadal in the final, though his game isn't fully working on clay yet. Mainly because of this point, which is just flat-out unbelievable.

True. And even more impressive on the Federer Resume are his 5 straight US Open titles, in my opinion. Sampras had always said it's easier for one guy to dominate on grass because so few players play their best on that surface. The US Open is a different animal. Hard courts are the home of many more of the top players today. That Federer has been able to dominate there for the last five years is much more impressive to me than his 5 straight Wimbledons. The US Open is ripe for a player who gives a pass on the whole clay season to be fresh & ready for Flushing Meadow. That Federer has been able to do what he's done there given that he's been in the thick of every tournament every month for those 5 years is breathtaking to contemplate.

In fact, the US Open for Federer holds a very special statistical significance: it's the only Major where he's never lost a Final. And he's had to turn back the two hottest players on hard courts in his last two US Opens: Djokovic & Murray. His Record at the US Open might be his second greatest achievement, only just behind being #1 for a record 237 straight weeks.

Please forgive me dredging up this thread, but I feel I need to deliver on a promise of pointing out the other term that I was afraid may be offensive, and yet, was never even mentioned and/or discovered in this topic, which became somewhat heated.

Ironically, it was in the same post where the Buckwheat reference started an unintended discussion about past characters in the media that can be viewed as offensive.




While it may not be obvious, because it was in French, "grenouille" is the French word for "frog." In my grandfather's, or great-grandfather's day, calling a french or a french-canadian person a frog would have started a fist fight. Whether you said it in English or French, it was an insult. Over the years, though, it lost its venom, and in fact, to the point where a lot of french-canadian groups have adopted it into the naming of their organizations, like the "FAROG (Franco-American Resource Opportunity Group) FORUM", etc... Now if you call people in their 20's or 30's a frog, they probably wouldn't even know, or think for that matter, that they're being ethnically insulted. And trust me...just like there may be offensive "dumb (insert nationality of choice) jokes" in other parts of the country, in many parts of New England, it was "dumb Frenchman" and "how many Frenchmen does it take...." jokes. (You'll see references to these in Stephen King books and movies, that often take place in Maine, and other northern New England areas)

I should know all this, because I'm French-Canadian, with some Celtic blood on my mom's side.

The word "frog" means nothing to me, other than the little green amphibian. While I have my opinions on how some groups have let offensive words like this slide off their respective backs over the generations, and other have not, I'll have to stop my Hingisitis at this point, as it is not likely to go anywhere constructive. I will say this, though...while other groups will use offensive words and "claim them as their own" the HUGE difference is that with "Frog," french-canadians don't mind if anyone else uses the term, even when an outsider points it at them. Enough on that.

Two-Hander...you and I are entitled to one argument or slight disagreement a year. That seems to be common for us, and I actually like the fact that we see eye to eye so often. I think my vocal stance on Hewitt's and Hingis's past respective racial and homophobic comments, and my extreme disdain for what happened to Shahar Peer in Dubai speak volumes about me. I really don't think I need to prove myself in any PC arena, I am secure in myself that way, and am quite sure my posting history will speak for itself.

When I said I believed some things people posted here were bordering on "crossing the line," Two-Hander, forgive me, it was when you said "white privilege" when people were qualifying that they meant no harm in using Buckwheat merely as a point of physical resemblance, and nothing else. I felt that was inappropriate. And while I certainly DO NOT feel this way, that would have been tantamount, IMO, to someone saying that blacks hold on to these references and merely feign offense to perpetuate "white guilt." I find BOTH of these ideologies, and their use ("white privilege" and "white guilt"), are crossing the line.

I'm not going to apologize for my explanation for using Buckwheat to make fun of Monfils's hair, I meant nothing offensive by it, other than trying to be funny, using a popular mechanism on this board...our love of comparing tennis players to celebrity and/or other cartoon-type characters. I will still call Tipsaravic "Bono" and Ancic "the Karate Kid" and Simon "Malcolm in the Middle" and will still laugh when others call Murray "Napolean Dynamite."

I still stand by my "if you read more into it, that's your problem" stance. After thinking about it more, I can see how people might see "how dare you be offended by it?" buried within it. And for that, and lacking the sensitivity around the Buckwheat character, I DO apologize.

I'm sorry.

Tennis Guy, we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on the French/African-American analogy. And I've got some French in me too.

About "white privilege," I regret using the phrase because it's collegiate-sounding, but I don't regret what I was trying to get at -- that until that post, Dedric and Terp were the only ones questioning or stating their dislike of the Buckwheat references, and they did so really reasonably. Almost apologetically. And you weren't the only one making them.

I wasn't singling you out as guilty of white privilege, I was hinting many of us were complicit, in the sense that it was only the black posters here who didn't like it and no one else was saying anything, or thinking it was curious or maybe messed up that they were bothered and others supposedly weren't. Then some people who aren't posting much anymore came out and said they also didn't like it. I don't think it's that PC of me to have taken it there either -- if anything it isn't PC to use words like white or black in this supposedly evolved post-racial new America.

My boyfriend is American Indian and there've been a lot of times in our relationship where I've said stuff that I chalk up to (but don't excuse as) white cluelessness. Because I'm not him. Over the years I've seen him deal with -- and I mean deal with -- worse from other people who don't know him or his family. It doesn't mean that I'm seeing myself as guilty or wrong or bad or worse than him because I'm a Euromutt, but just that there is plenty I still don't know about where he's come from and experienced, and I don't take it for granted.

All or at least many of us who've posted here get heated at one point or another. And things can get personal. That's pretty much what I chalk the volatility of this hothouse thread up to, not that any one poster here is perfectly right or horribly wrong. I don't apologize for our disagreements. I apologize if you felt singled out by some of that I said in this thread, because that wasn't my intent. And if I had to guess, there are probably some other posters here who agree with you a lot more than with me.