When I was at Indian Wells earlier this year, I accidentally sat on the players’ side of the cafeteria for a few days. One day I sat next to Roger Federer’s group. Federer was watching Andy Roddick play on the big screen and he noted how far back Roddick stood to return serve.

All the more puzzling, then, to see Federer at least five feet behind the baseline for that serving behemoth, Rafael Nadal. Nadal has a serviceable and snaky serve but it’s not frightening.

It looks like Federer let the court conditions psyche him out

Federer’s positioning didn’t hurt him right away. Leading 3-0 in the first set, he hit one of those slice approaches that twist away and out of the court. Nadal had made a sliding forehand save and now had Federer at the net but he put the passing shot wide. With a point like that, it looked like we were in for another fabulous Federer-Nadal match but if you looked closer, you’d have seen that Federer was behind the baseline for groundstrokes too. Federer has always been notable because he insisted on standing on the baseline and cutting off the angles. What was happening here?

Federer won the first set easily, 6-1, mainly because Nadal hadn’t yet arrived.

Toni Nadal was not caught coaching from the stands today – both Federer and Ivan Ljubicic had complained about it earlier this week – but he didn’t need to. Nadal’s strategy was the same as always – attack Federer’s backhand at every opportunity.

On Federer’s first service game in the second set, Nadal hung in the game long enough for Federer to make some errors then hit a sliding, lunging passing shot for a winner to go up 2-0. In the fifth game, Federer hit three straight backhand errors. In Nadal’s first service game in the third set, it continued. Nadal served to Federer’s backhand four times and tried on the fifth but Federer ran around it. Nadal’s game is not diverse or nuanced, it’s muscular and predictable. Doesn’t matter, it’s very hard to beat him without a backhand.

Federer had an opportunity to turn the match around three games later. He had Nadal down 0-40 but came to the net exactly once, unsuccessfully, during those break points and didn’t come in again until Nadal had a game point. Federer got another break point but still no trips to the net, not surprising considering he was still standing in the hinterlands.

If this game signaled Federer’s strategy, it should have told him that his strategy wasn’t working. No one can beat Nadal from the baseline on clay courts – fifty-six straight victories should tell you that. It puts immense pressure on your groundstrokes because Nadal runs everything down and outsteadies everyone. In the next game, Federer finally came to the net two points in a row but he made errors going for those groundstoke winners again and there went the third set.

What was he thinking? He’d come within two points of beating Nadal in Rome by attacking and here he was, in his first trip to the French Open final with the last three grand slam events in his pocket and he backed off.

It got worse. Federer lost his serve in the first game of the fourth set winning the same number of points at the net as Nadal: one. By the end of the set, Federer had his last chance to get the break back as Nadal served for the match at 5-4. Federer would never admit it but it looked like he didn’t have it in him to change the momentum. Halfway through the game he played a marvelous point. He went back and forth from corner to corner running down Nadal’s cross court shots then ran in to get a Nadal drop shot, finally winning the point with a misdirection volley. We were all desperate for a turning point but, as good as this point was, Federer looked for all the world like Richard Gasquet running around on clay so far behind the baseline you wonder how he ever wins a point. Federer got the break and the crowd went crazy but it was a good defensive point on Federer’s part, it wasn’t an effective change of strategy.

And it didn’t qualify as a turning point. The fourth set tiebreaker looked the same as the last three sets: Nadal dictated play. On match point, Nadal hit a swinging volley to take the tiebreaker and the match, 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4), rolled in the dirt, twice, then ran over to shake Spanish King Juan Carlos’ hand for the second year in a row.

When Federer was asked why he didn’t attack more, he gave us a clue that might explain his defensive approach: “Conditions were slower here, much slower, …the balls were much slower than Rome so it didn’t allow me to do that.”

It looks like Federer let the court conditions psyche him out. Two week’s worth of matches told him that he couldn’t play his aggressive game against Nadal. But look at it like this, he attacked the net exactly two more times today than he did against his first round opponent, that well known player named Diego Hartfield, and that was a three set match. Admittedly Hartfield doesn’t have Nadal’s passing shot but surely if he found it necessary then, why not now?

Even after such a disappointing match, Federer was, as always, Mr. Positive: “I got awfully close to win the French Open so it gives me confidence.” Still, Mr. Positive had some regrets: “I suppose this is the point that I really regret. I should have returned better on his serves, and I didn’t manage to do that very well today.”

Remember that thought, Roger, and remember next time to move up. While you’re at it, you should also remember that you are the best competition Nadal has because you have an all-court game. Next time, use it.