When my co-writer Nina Rota and I spoke last week about the likely final at Roland Garros between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, she said, “I really want Roger to win, otherwise this is not a true rivalry.” I was just as eager to see him win.

Well, a match so over hyped as the final was on Sunday is probably due to disappoint nearly everyone, even Rafa fans. On that score, it did live up to the billing, unfortunately. It was something along the lines of eating Chinese food. It seemed yummy at the time, but a few hours later we’re complaining, there’s a gap opening up in my tummy already.

There were certainly gaps in this match. Somehow it just didn’t satisfy our hankering for a lovely, substantial tennis meal. Let’s hope though that the new recruits to the game – who probably turned on their TV sets lured by the hype over this match – don’t get disappointed and go back to NASCAR or whatever else it is they catch sports-wise on the tube. Come to think of it, would NASCAR refugees be here in the first place? Maybe not.

This should have been a marvelous poster ad for men’s tennis. It wasn’t, but the rivalry between the two men is certainly still there. But where does it go from here? I think what needs to happen is that their different styles of play really start to interpenetrate the world of the other, on surfaces other than clay.

Just as Nadal seems to have gotten deep inside the head of the Fed, I think Roger has to really step it up during the grass and hard court seasons, whenever he faces Nadal, and hopefully they will face each other on those surfaces. On grass, it will be Nadal’s turn to scramble and find his way, against an opponent whose game is just as tailor-made for those surfaces as Nadal’s is for clay.

Clay is suited to Nadal for another reason. He can win on clay because of his overwhelming physicality. That is as big a weapon in his arsenal as that hooking forehand, or his relentless court coverage. On grass, that aspect won’t matter so much. Rather it’s all about the shot-making. You need to serve and volley. Grinding? What’s that on grass?

Nadal is going to get fitted with a new suit at Wimbledon, and he may find it a tight fit. I for one am very curious to see the pace at which he proceeds to learn on grass. And of course we get the added thrill of watching an ebullient Latin temperament fitted into the drab and green lawns of the All-England Club. In my screenwriting courses at the AFI, they used to talk about the different genres in film writing. The “Fish Out of Water” is a very popular one. A guy from one world basically gets plopped down in the middle of a totally different one. Often with wild and crazy results.

This is Nadal, going into Wimbledon. The game that Roger Federer termed earlier this spring “one dimensional” is now going to have to open up to incorporate new skills. We all hope he can do this, to a large degree. We want that rivalry, and this is how we get it. They each keep learning the skills of the other’s world.

And what about Federer? Part of me is very upset that he did not play up to his level in Rome, at least. I felt though I got a look into Roger’s soul a bit on Sunday, and for a minute there I caught a glimmer of…well, sorry to say, a burgher. He may be too complacent now, everything has come ever so easily. And perhaps that has taken a toll. But perhaps it also served as a good wake-up call. We won’t know what the results of that are until the Big Red One that is Roland Garros rolls around next spring.

On Sunday, it seemed that Roger was shocked almost by how well he handled Nadal in the first set. And that first set may indeed have been equal combinations of Roger playing aggressively and well, and Nadal not quite with his morning Starbuck’s under his belt. And then, almost like a sleepwalker, Federer opened his eyes and looked around and had a sudden panic attack. He scared himself. Maybe he is too nice a guy a lot of the time. He couldn’t stick the knife in Nadal.

Would Roger dare to eat the peach? No, apparently not. His feet are not made of clay, but Sunday they looked for all the world like they were certainly stuck in clay. Federer pulled a bit of a Mauresmo on us, and we could pose the same question to both: what’s the point of having such beautiful, well-rounded games when you guys don’t seem to want to PLAY them in the big moments of tournaments? Hey, give me your game then, if you really really don’t want it.

But Roger will get another shot at it next year, he will win Roland Garros at some point. Maybe right at the point when everyone thinks, “He can never win this one.” The pressure of keeping his Slam run alive won’t be there next year. Well, unless of course he gets real annoyed with himself and just goes off on a tear for the rest of this year and gets ANOTHER Slam run going. Who knows, maybe each guy crosses over next year, with Rafa making a serious run at Wimbledon, and Federer finally taking the French.

That peach is going down, one way or the other.

– – – – – – –

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.

– – – – – – –

But do you really want one? Rafael Nadal munches on them routinely in between games, and for many athletes they are a wonderfully easy way to ingest a quick boost. The cyclist’s best friend, I used to term them when I competed. Only today Nadal may want to switch to something else in season. Or go for a juice thing.

In his marathon four-setter against 29th seed Paul-Henri Mathieu today at the French Open, Rafael Nadal gulped a quick bite of banana and then went back on court to play. Only to discover that the piece of fruit had lodged in his throat. Not enough to choke the lad, thank God. Nobody had to rush on court and shake him upside down to dislodge it. But it gave him some moments of fairly high anxiety. Hey, Rafa, in addition to not playing with your food, didn’t that good-looking mom of yours tell you to always chew it first?

Nadal nearly bit off more than he could chew in this match, which went nearly five hours against the hometown favorite. The Frenchman Mathieu kept Nadal looking tense and perplexed for a lot of the early half of the match. For a moment there I almost thought the look had a bit of fear to it, as if Rafa himself were not sure if this day would be his. Mathieu combined strong serving with big deep shots off both wings, his play at the net showed good feel and touch. He’s got a pleasant game to look at, with a lot of style. He’s a good-looking tall kid, kind of a roadshow version of Thomas Enqvist.

I have always said I can tolerate the French men. As long as they look like the Swedish ones.

Mathieu probably gave the boys in the players’ lounge a good look into what needs to be done to accost this kid from Majorca. Is it not becoming clear? Roger has shown the way. So did Blake in his win over Nadal at last year’s U.S. Open. Attack attack. Go after him every chance you get, make your chances, take the net when you can and try and finish points off quickly.

One thing perhaps to consider is attacking his first serve as much as you can, because Nadal spins it in at a fantastically high service percentage. In Rome I think it was a 90% first service. That means you see an awful lot of spin to keep it in play, and less speed, and you can get a swing in. It also means that if you don’t really try and do something with the first serve, you have only a small chance of ever seeing a second one.

So grab it while it’s hot. This came up in the TV commentary during the match today, when John McEnroe talked about speaking with Federer in the locker room after the Rome final and saying basically, “Maybe attack his second serve more,” and Roger replied he would have liked to, if he had seen a few of them. Nadal was near perfect in his serving.

In watching this match, I felt that Nadal did not show quite the same intensity he did in the Rome final against Federer. But perhaps that was just a brilliant day of intensity on all fronts that, sorry to say, we may not see every weekend. We may even have to live with one or two clunker matches perhaps along the way here, just because two human beings cannot keep up this pace forever.

Does that mean Nadal was a little “off” there at moments as to expose a weakness? And does his being off like this equal Roger Federer “taking his foot off the gas” in Rome? That is how I put it to my co-writer, Nina Rota, who actually thinks the Fed choked it away. She terms it a choke, simply because a player ranked the way Federer is does not simply make mental mistakes like that. I tend to agree with her now.

We’ll see how the two fare in the run-up into what is, hopefully, another great final. But the pressure is going to be intense going into next week, and it will be interesting to see how they both handle it. For my money, Federer may have had some hiccups, but he still looked cool and in control. Nadal has not quite looked that way, at least not today. Perhaps the pressure will take a toll more on him.

I heard McEnroe rap about them again in the booth today, and I am picking up the vibe from JMc that he thinks Federer is going to win. For a number of reasons. Personally I think Mc just digs his style of play, the movement, the touch, it’s a complete game the way Mc constructed his own. He also feels Roger is practically there already, he knows how to play on clay, he had Rafa on two match points. He played his way to get there. Now he can play his way and figure out how to win. McEnroe pointed out what a good student of the game Roger is, he figures out his opponents. Nalbandian can still bother Roger, but he doesn’t lose to him the way he did a few years ago. Ditto Hewitt and Henman, who also had winning records against Federer early on. Now they can’t buy a point off of him. I would not like to see Nadal slip into that trough of despond. It would be bad for tennis. But a day of reckoning may be coming, and this time Nadal may be the one who comes up short.

And there is another element. Mathieu looked plainly fatigued today, in about the same length of match that the guys had in Rome. Federer did not strike me at all as running out of steam.

In any event, Nadal was not as awesome as he was in Rome. He still won, but I am sensing vulnerability here. He gave Mathieu chances to do things and Mathieu took them. Mathieu is the way most of the tour players could beat Roger: hope that Roger has a slightly off day, for him, and you have an incredibly good day. Only Nadal seems able to play him, at full strength. At least up until now.

It was annoying though to see Mathieu really go into the can on his serve at 4-4 in the fourth and final set, playing really dumb shots and then capping it with a double fault. Nadal then served out the match. It was an unfortunate and costly lapse in an otherwise really well-played match by the young Frenchman.

The final score was 5-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4.

Lleyton Hewitt gets a crack at Nadal in the next round. Unfortunately, Hewitt needs more of the attacking style of Mathieu’s play. He doesn’t have quite the range and height and levers; he’s a B version of Nadal, at this point in his career, a grinder who can grind but not up to the high standard that Nadal has set now in the men’s game. Still, I for one am impressed Hewitt has made it this far in the draw. Today he beat a tricky player, Dominik Hrbaty, in straight sets.

Hey, I’m sure some of us were not expecting him to advance this far. A few other people played tennis today too, I’m sure. But this match and the things surrounding it kind of swept me up.

Hingis trampled another poor opponent. I thought I could shower and make coffee and catch it, but it was practically over by then. Could it be? Hhhmmm, this vision is crowding into my head….a Swiss lady….and gentleman? Winning their first French Opens? Atop the podium?

What kind of banana am I eating, anyway?

– – – – –

Spring time in Paris seems a bit…well, underbaked this year. We are huddled at Roland Garros trying to keep warm and not very successfully at that. Temperatures have been in the fifties, the skies are gray and rainy and gusts of wind have blown the red clay every which way.

The first week of a Grand Slam event is interesting often just to see how the players work the kinks out of their games. Especially the ones who were off the week before. You have to settle into things, and hope that you’re still around in the draw by the time you do get down to business. But until that happy meshing of form forms out of formlessness, things can get a bit cranky.

Ask Roger Federer and Maria Sharapova. They were given the honor of inaugurating an early first Sunday start at Roland Garros. But unfortunately neither one of them appreciated it. They said so aftrerwards in their press conferences. Now they would have two days off before their next matches (which both got through more handily this round), and players are never happy about that long a wait in between. Roger was pressed by newcomer Diego Hartfield of Argentina, a name I love. It’s right up there with baseball player Vladimir Guerrero. Mothers with a sense of humor, don’t you love ’em?

Roger had never seen nor heard of Hartfield before. He got into the draw when Arnaud Clement pulled out due to injury. So we got the extra thrill of watching Federer try and figure out a newbie. He did, but it was a little nervewracking, as the 7-5, 7-6(2), 6-2 score might indicate for the world’s number one.

Sharapova must have found her three setter against Mashona Washington more than a little nervewracking. She hung on through her own fiery quirks of character, first the whining look after she misses a point, then a moment of pouting, taking her time, and then regrouping. Many people feel her chances are not good this year at Roland Garros, her actual tournament play has been spotty and her injuries may still be lurking, not quite fully healed. But after this squeaker perhaps she feels the gods are smiling down on her.

There is no God as far as the American contingent is concerned. Andy Roddick walked into what he termed “a groundhog day” in losing his first rounder with Spaniard Alberto Martin, whom he had always beaten before. His already tweaked ankle injury got tweaked early in the match, and the air just went out of Roddick’s play entirely. He retired at 0-1 in the third, after losing the first two, 4-6 and 5-7. Roddick seemed calm but resigned in his press conference. The ankle just wasn’t ready after all. But at least Andy’s looking forward to the grass court season, his favorite time of year. See you in a few weeks, Andy.

James Blake got through his opener with Srichaphan, but I don’t expect him to get by the big-hitting newcomer, Nicholas Almagro in the next round. That would leave the Americans with one male, Kevin Kim, still alive. Roddick was the highest men’s seed to exit, at number five.

Nadia Petrova, at number 3, was the highest women’s seed gone from the tournament. Brad Gilbert reported from the announcer’s booth that apparently Petrova might have wrecked herself doing “explosive” sprints in practice the day before. “Why is she doing that?” Gilbert wondered. That should come earlier in your training, not the day before an event. A brain cramp, in Gilbert’s mind. She looked totally out of energy. Morigami from Japan took the hottest women player this spring on clay, and made her look like sushi. In fact sushi looks more alive than Petrova did, going out rather meekly, 6-2, 6-2.

Guess we will have to wait for another big tournament to see if Petrova’s conquered her nerves yet. Can we anticipate rumors now that Petrova possibly tanked the match just so she would not have to face those nerves in a later round? She and Mauresmo are rowing together in this boat now. They both endure reputations of being big-time chokers. Both women are now on the same curve in finding ways out of this psychological pressure cooker. Mauresmo has pulled it off twice now in two big tournaments. Albeit her Australian Open victory was under a pall of sorts, due to Justine Henin-Hardenne’s unfortunate decision to retire from the match. Now it’s Petrova’s turn this spring to deal with bigger and bigger occasions. But on the way there you still need to trample the little people well, and that she did not do today on court against Morigami.

In other matches, David Nalbandian drove Richard Gasquet slightly batty today, frustrating the Frenchman’s efforts to get into the match in any consistent way, until he self-imploded in the final set of four, double-faulting on match point.

Venus Williams got time at the tail end of the day, when dark clouds were settling in and the fading light was about to factor in. It seemed like a bare handful of people were still in attendance. Richard Williams had a whole corner all to himself in the stands, and seemed more by himself than I could ever remember seeing him. But he kept watching his daughter steadily, as if in that look he could channel some force to her game that she needed right then. Like getting a grip on herself. She came out walloping the forehand every which way except inside the lines. And she covered ground so aggressively that she ran through a number of shots. Someone needed to tell Venus she was on a tennis court and not a baseball diamond.

This is my first look at Finnish player Emma Laine, and she looks pretty solid for this being her first major event. By the end of the first four games, Venus realized this girl was not backing away, so Venus stepped it up and basically steadied her game. Once Venus clubbed her in the tiebreaker, the second set went more or less like we would expect it. Venus’ way.

Boy, wouldn’t that be a crock if Venus makes it to the Final. Someone pinch me.

Speaking of dreamlands, the Fantasy Tennis crowd is probably enjoying life, as most of the big seeds are still in and we are all making lots of dough. Imaginary of course, but it’s the thought that counts, right?

So far, my manly eight are still intact. Here they are:

Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Nadal, Federer, Davydenko, Robredo, Stepanek, Almagro.

– – – – –

Here is how my eight will do in their following Round of 16 matches against their most likely opponents:

Ljubicic vs. Ferrer (I pick Lube to win, even though Ferrer may seem an easier pick on clay. The big Croatian could/should finally make a good dent in this major).

Stepanek vs. Martin (Stepanek has had a good year on clay, and I think he is ready to move on in this match).

Almagro vs. Gonzalez (Both have had spectacular clay seasons. Gonzalez is playing the best I have ever seen him play. I haven’t ever seen Almagro play, but the hype has sold me. This is my DARK HORSE).

Nadal vs. Hewitt (If Hewitt hangs on to get this far, that is. I look forward to Nadal ringing his bell good. Aren’t we all?).

Nalbandian vs. Tursunov (easy pickings for Nalbandian).

Davydenko vs. Gaudio (A tight match, but Davydenko has been more consistent this year).

Federer vs. Kiefer (The German’s wild five-setter today against Frenchman Gicquel was one of the more entertaining matches of the tournament. I don’t think Roger will give him such a cheap thrill. But FedMan will have to watch himself, Kiefer can be dangerous when he wants to play).

Robredo vs. Ancic (Another entertaining match. Ancic has played surprisingly well on clay, but Robredo has finally and consistently lived up to his hype this year).

The Quarters:

Ljubicic defeats Stepanek
Nadal defeats Almagro
Nalbandian defeats Davydenko
Federer defeats Robredo

The Semis:

Ljubicic paired with Nadal (interesting for a set or two, maybe even four; Lube is 1 and 2 against Nadal, but never on clay, and not this time either).

Federer over Nalbandian

The Final: It’s THEM again! At least we all hope. If I had oodles and oodles of noodles, I would bet them on Roger. Finally, I think the lad is going to figure it all out and beat Nadal.

Now, can we get some heaters out on those courts? We can see our French brethren look cold.

– – – – –