[Diane Dees]

In terms of the scoreline, Cally, no--it wasn't the most one-sided. That would have been the 1994 Australian Open final, in which Steffi Graf defeated Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, 6-0, 6-2.

And Saturday's scoreline was identical, numbers-wise, to the 2007 Australian Open final, in which Serena defeated Sharapova, 6-1, 6-2.

[Chris Hanson]

...and on that occasion, Diane, Sharapova was far from an inexperienced youngster, blown away by the occasion--she was already a Wimbledon champion, and just had a shocker against an on-fire opponent. The same with the Sanchez-Graf match.

I think yesterday's result was quite predictable.

[Chris Childers]

Rafa up two sets to one.

For the first set and a half, it was really clear why Nadal gives Fed so much trouble: because the normal rally shots & angles play so much more into his strengths than Fed's. The Federer backhand cross-court to the Nadal forehand is obviously in Nadal's favor, while whenever Federer runs around a backhand to hit the forehand up the line, Nadal is there with that blistering cross-court backhand into the open court. Add in the fact that he practically doesn't miss, and there's nowhere safe to put an approach shot, and you have a flummoxed Roger Federer. Then finally there's Fed's refusal to run around serves almost invariably directed at his backhand, and the weak returns he just punts into the court off weak serves, letting Rafa into points that he could take charge of.

Two things happened: Federer started changing his habitual angles, using the slice backhand up the line (instead of cross-court), & when he runs around the forehand, hitting it flat and inside-out with a wicked angle to Nadal's forehand rather than up the line. The second thing, & probably more important, is that Rafa got tired and started making errors that he just doesn't make. If Federer wins this match, he owes a lot of the credit to Fernando Verdasco. The key moment was that weak service Nadal played early in the second set when he had the break and just kind of gave it back for no real reason.

I wrote all this expecting Fed to win the third set; I'm shocked that he lost it. It looked so clear that he was going to win the match; unbelievable heart from Rafa, and a bit of choking from Fed. He's already The Man, but if he wins this thing, he's really The Man.

Chris

[peter richards]

I think rafa's won 4 of about 5 break points, while fed's on 4 of about 25. That observation doesn't include the fourth set, which fed just won! Is rafa too disadvantaged by the gruelling semi-final?
It's a great final either way.

[Chris Childers]

Rafa was unbelievable but Roger choked. He choked the 3rd set away, when Nadal was laboring physically and making mistakes, & he had all those chances, & then as Patrick McEnroe keeps saying, Roger just blew the 5th. It was not nearly as high quality a match as these two can play, because of Rafa's physical situation & Roger's mental. When has he served that badly in that sort of match? Part of it is the edge Nadal has over him, but a lot of it has to be that unlucky 13. But there it is. What is Rafa going to achieve? How long can he keep this up? Can he win the US Open? Can he win the Grand Slam this year? The only question I have is his longevity: how long can his body do this? While it still works on him, & he can dig this deep in major tournaments, what can't he do? Federer's genius has generated a new level of greatness, a whole new level of player; what will the world produce next to come along and beat Rafa?

The point that they keep showing, where Federer hits the brilliant squash shot recovery that you think has to be a winner, and Nadal somehow gets to it and puts it on the baseline, Federer picks it up with his backhand and puts it on Rafa's baseline, & the next Federer shot is an inside-out forehand & you think that ought to be a winner but Rafa is waiting on it and he takes it up the line with a forehand winner of his own, is an encapsulation of the whole saga, the whole situation. The most incredible tennis you can imagine, & Rafa just doesn't quit, and comes up with something unimaginable. His will is like no one else's.

Chris

[Chris Hanson]

A great men's final.
I was clearly wrong in my prediction of a Federer win.
Although Nadal had attention by the trainer at one point, he never, ever, looked like he was under any pressure.
Federer, however, was up and down all through the match. It is to his credit that it went to five sets.
His emotional show at the presentation only brought a lump to the throat for a second. I soon thought, "Grow up, you dick. You just got paid more than I'll see in the next fifteen years."
That little rant aside, it was a good tournament (just too damned hot).

[Chris Childers]

Originally Posted by Chris Hanson

A great men's final.

His emotional show at the presentation only brought a lump to the throat for a second. I soon thought, "Grow up, you dick. You just got paid more than I'll see in the next fifteen years."

What an ungenerous thing to say. Federer doesn't care about the money--you don't get to be that good at anything if money is what you're after--& there's nothing juvenile about tears. Ever read the Odyssey? Homeric heroes cry all the time; and yet now we think tearing up is a sign of childishness. The fact that there are other people with worse problems doesn't mean Federer should pretend like he's happy to lose.

[Diane Dees]

I don't think Federer choked; I think he was spent.