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.

It hardly seems fair. We’re all sitting on our hands expectantly, waiting for the guys tomorrow in what should be, if it lives up to the hype, one of the greatest men’s matches ever. But it’s sad to have to report that, other than the final tomorrow, this has been a rather lackluster Roland Garros. The women’s final today just concluded, and sadly proved the point.

Justine Henin-Hardenne was a heavy favorite going into this match against Svetlana Kuznetsova, who had only beaten JHH once in nine tries. Right there was probably the heart of the problem. A record that lopsided means someone owns you and your game, so you are probably a head case already from the get-go.

Kuznetsova showed us this history from the opening point. She spent nearly all of the first set just getting her head in order. The nerves were obviously getting to her. She ran up five errors alone in the opening game. The predictable thing happened: Henin-Hardenne took advantage of that and got herself an early break. By the time the Russian Number Eight seed got herself calmed down, it was too late. The first set was gone, 6-4.

This is a morose turn of events, since I have gone out on the limb to pick the Kuz in three sets over JHH. I don’t feel any better when John McEnroe in the commentary booth pipes up with, “One of the things about watching the women is how unpredictable it is.” Duh. That’s a mild statement for what women’s tennis has become in the last year and a half or so. The big titles are now spread rather evenly around a number of people in the women’s fields. Meaning: Not the glow of diversity, but rather that the play is very uneven and nobody can really step up and take charge. Personally I think it is not a good thing when there is this much chaos taking place. And that is the word to use. Things feel like they are falling apart.

Justine Henin-Hardenne may be the one to step up and assert herself, the way she did today. And even today she would probably concede that she was lucky. We all got on her case after her retirement from the Australian Open this January. I seem to recall that I was particularly incensed with her behavior towards Amelie Mauresmo, whom I thought would go on to have a stellar year.

Well guess what, folks. Amelie is back in the slough of despond, Clijsters went out to JHH in a really surprisingly lame semi-final match, Petrova gave out a big choke and disappeared on opening day, Venus Williams got us worked up and then dropped us just as abruptly. And everyone seems now like they are getting bored not only with Sharapova’s personality, but her game too.

Hingis can still entertain, but only up to a point. She’s going to have to start beating up the really top girls if she wants to sustain our interest. My co-writer, Nina Rota, thinks the fact Hingis came back and made a dent in the lower echelons means the women have not improved much. And sometimes I wonder about the top echelon, given the quality of a lot of the play we saw today.

Which leads me to bemoan the fact that I am getting a bit skeptical of Martina and her Great Return. I DO expect her to beat the bigger girls now, isn’t that why she’s here? Instead it is not proving that way, and I wonder if Martina can make the reality check and then the appropriate adjustment in her game.

I look at Justine Henin-Hardenne, and I wonder why Hingis can’t use her as a model. They are nearly exactly the same size, Hingis may be an inch taller. Why can’t Hingis bring her game up closer to where JHH’s is? If Justine can add more pop to her serve and her forehand, can’t Hingis? I think she has, a little bit. We still have further to go, but can she go there? Does she want to be the grunt that Justine is reportedly in her training intensity? I wonder. And I hope. There seems little point in planning a comeback unless you feel you can really hang with the big girls now. Hingis can demolish nearly the entire field, but the top girls are still going to be problematic for her. Unless she addresses these issues.

And this is the problem with the women. The desire is not there in a lot of them, or they would be doing the things they need to do, making the corrections, trying to keep improving. If you want it, do it. Justine steps up to the plate and unloads one. And she’s just a little squeak.

There is no denying JHH has the most beautiful and interesting game now on the women’s side. I can’t keep hating her guts forever. She is just too talented. And she works like a dog, something I really admire about the woman. Her trainer speaks of having to get her to back down and not train so hard. How many women can we say that about on the tour? Her work ethic is beyond impeccable and her sense of discipline is really extraordinary. Alright, so she’s a cool type, and her husband is almost a bit too fey, and they probably have one of the stranger marriages the tour has seen. The woman can play.

Does anyone else think that Henin-Hardenne though almost looks a little TOO lean right now? A year ago I was saying just the opposite: “My God, what is she taking that her body looks so much bigger?” Yes, I wondered what secret potions she was drinking in amongst all that time spent in the weight room. But now she looks thinner than before. I wondered if her growing fatigue today was due to the fact she may be too thin for longer matches. But I guess if you are always facing women who get nervous and discombobulated and play just downright lousy, then you will continue to get by them. Thin or not. And what does that say about women’s tennis? Why can’t we have more women like her? Maybe we’d see a more interesting final than the one we saw today.

Really, it should have been Kuznetsova who was consistently taking it to Justine. She is the stronger woman, with the bigger shots. But she just could not control her game today. At the end of the first set and into the second, Kuzie grabbed the momentum. Her nerves calmed down, she started imposing her game on Henin-Hardenne. She had a run of six straight points, and for a moment I thought for sure she would turn it around in three sets.

But then she slipped back into her play of the early first set. Overhitting shots and basically letting her mind slip away. And Justine plainly looked rather winded, as if a little more pressure would have done her in for good. But Kuznetsova could no longer trouble her. Justine just kept on going and never looked back. She leveled a great backhand up the line for championship point, then served a weak second serve that Kuznetsova obliged by hitting wildly off to the side.

And these broads want equal pay? Pull my other leg, baby. Justine deserves it, but not many after her. With this victory hopefully she can establish who’s boss now among the women. The tournament also yielded glimpses into two future stars, Shahar Peer of Israel, and Nicole Vaidisova of Czechoslovakia. Both showed lots of power and energy on the court. OK, so the Czech got tight at the last minute, but everything else about her experience at Roland Garros should convince her that she will be around for a while.

But right now, the future of the men and the women are in the hands of people who are not exactly physical specimens. Roger Federer is not a big guy and he doesn’t serve huge. But he plays smart, and so does Justine Henin-Hardenne. Their games are beautiful to watch and very similar. Johnny Mc got that one right today in the booth.

Now, when are the other boys and girls going to improve THEIR games? And don’t all speak at once.

– – – – – – –

Roger Federer was one match away from his first trip to the French Open final and a possible “Roger slam” – four straight slam titles – and he couldn’t hit the side of a barn. It was the first set of his semifinal match at the French Open against David Nalbandian and the ball was bouncing off the frame of his racket. He blamed his slow start on the wind but I reckon it was just as windy on the other side of the court.

Any grand slam title requires a bit of good luck and it looked like Federer got his today

Federer mishit another ball at 2-2 to go down a break and that was all Nalbandian needed to win the first set 6-3.

It wasn’t only the wind. I call Nalbandian the perpetual semifinalist because he can outsteady everyone except the spectacular players. Not that he doesn’t have spectacular shots. He got another break point early in the second set on a fabulous cross court return from outside the doubles line. On the next point, Federer got himself into deeper trouble with a floating backhand and found himself down a set and a break.

Was this how how his bid for a French Open title and the Roger slam would end? No fifth set tiebreaker, no scintillating exchange of stunning shots, instead, a bunch of popgun forehands from the number one player in the world? Everyone wanted to see Federer-Nadal VII in the final but they wanted to see a tough semifinal too and they were getting neither.

After Nalbandian got ahead 3-0 in the second set, Federer started to wake up. He chopped a crosscourt winner off a tough shot to hold his serve. In the next game he hit a beautiful drop shot and a backhand passing shot to get a break point. Nalbandian felt the heat. He double faulted to give Federer the game at love.

The comeback was complete after Federer ran down a ball that Nalbandian had poked over his head. Federer ran backwards to the opposite corner of the court and when he reached the ball, turned on it and flicked it down the line past Nabandian then put one finger in the air. “I am number one.” Rightly so. It looked like a squash shot and it was. Federer credited “my squash over the years with my father… .” Nalbandian hiccuped again, he put an overhead into the net, and Federer was up a break in the second set.

Federer won the second set, 6-4, then broke Nalbandian to begin the third set. After holding on his next service game, Nalbandian was visited by the trainer and the doctor. In the next game he lunged awkwardly at a ball instead of gracefully sliding then ran down a ball but couldn’t get around on it.

the first image that came to mind was Bjorn Borg spraying his tummy with a freezing product during changeovers at Wimbledon

Federer broke again to go up 5-2 and as Nalbandian walked off the court at the end of the game, he retired due to an abdominal strain. He’d injured it during his match with Davydenko then reinjured it serving at 3-1 in the second set. Which was exactly the point at which Federer started to turn his game around. Any slam title requires a bit of good luck and it looked like Federer got his today.

He didn’t seem to appreciate it though. After the match he called Nalbandian out: “He gave up. But if he’d been leading 5‑Love in the third set, he wouldn’t have given up.” What is happening to tennis? First Novak Djokovic called out Rafael Nadal after Djokovic retired then Federer called out Nalbandian after Nalbandian retired.

This is the ninth time a male player has retired in this tournament. A quarterfinal and semifinal match failed to finish. That’s not a good product for tennis to put on the court. There’s been an epidemic of injuries because the season is too long and there is no off-season to speak of. The organizers of last year’s Masters Cup in Shanghai were uncharacteristically blunt in complaining about their weak field caused by injuries to Nadal, Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi.

After Nalbandian retired, the first image that came to mind was Bjorn Borg spraying his tummy with a freezing product during changeovers at Wimbledon. He’d strained an abdominal muscle while trying to beef up his serve. I don’t remember if he won that year but he got to the final in the last six Wimbledons he entered so it’s a safe bet that he reached the final and I know he didn’t retire once he got there. That’s more than you could say after watching Justine Henin-Hardenne retire during the Australian Open final due to an upset stomach.

It’s tempting to say that players today don’t have as much intestinal fortitude as past players but the combination of newer equipment, big hitters and an absurdly long season have led to this. However, players should be ganging up on the ATP and WTA, not calling each other out.

When I spoke to players at last year’s WTA championship, they offered little support for a separate players union – the players have three seats on the WTA Board of Directors as do the tournament directors. With the current structure, the players don’t have enough power to force the WTA to eliminate tournaments from the schedule. Kim Clijsters was ranked number one coming into those championships but she was so tired from her late season run that she won only one match. She’s now twenty-two years old and plans to retire at the end of the 2007 season because she’s tired of being injured. She’s afraid she’ll begin to look like an old NFL linebacker, unable to walk up and down the stairs without excruciating pain by the time she’s fifty years old.

Luckily for tennis we have Federer-Nadal VII this Sunday and we might get the beginnings of a real rivalry. I guess that’s why no one is complaining.