AP News, June 11th, 2007
Goliath had David, Chamberlain had Russell, Roger Federer has Rafael Nadal.
It's nature's way of reminding even the biggest, baddest, swiftest and most skilled among us that somewhere out there is the one somebody who has your number.
It was a lesson even Tony Soprano seemed destined to learn the hard way in a New Jersey diner Sunday night _ and if not then, the series left you with the impression that it would happen soon enough. But there was nothing remotely open-ended about what happened to Federer a few hours earlier on the other side of the Atlantic.
"Obviously, if I would have won today, I would have had not many other goals to chase in my career," he said after losing the French Open to Nadal in four sets for the third time in as many years.
Three years ago, the defeat was in the semifinals; the last two years, if it's any consolation, they've been the last two standing.
"Like this, it stays open," Federer added. "And, eventually, if I get it, the sweeter it's going to taste."
If that little bit of rationalization makes it easy for the Swiss to wake up Monday morning in Paris and point himself toward the next stop on his schedule, more power to him.
Goliath never recovered from his only meeting with David. Wilt Chamberlain lost seven of eight playoff series against Bill Russell's Celtics, and won one of his only two NBA championships during the time both played in the league. Over that span, Russell won nine.
Federer-Nadal isn't as dire as either of those two rivalries, but it's definitely trending in the Spaniard's direction. He won the first five matches between the two on clay, lost to Federer last month at the Hamburg Masters, then arrived at Roland Garros and went about his business as if it never happened.
Counting Sunday's final, Nadal is a stunning 21-0 at the stadium and 34-0 in best-of-five clay-court matches. Just 21, he already owns three French Open titles and is well on his way to establishing himself as the best player on the surface his sport has ever seen.
More to the point, it's hard to see how Federer, so much better than any of his peers on grass or hard courts, and better than everyone except Nadal on clay, is going to loosen the left-hander's stranglehold on the tournament. Federer's dominance of his sport's major tournaments rivals Tiger Woods, and like Woods, he's clearly better at just about every phase of the game than any of his competitors. The one exception may be Nadal's remarkable ability to cover the entire court, a slight advantage that can turn into a large one on clay.
On clay, the balls bounce a little higher and sit up a little longer, making it easier to impart the vicious spin that makes Nadal's confounding forehand an even more formidable weapon. In a bid to change things up, Federer played more aggressively returning serve and coming to net.
But while he earned 17 break points, Federer cashed in only one. He won 13 of 14 points at the net in the first two sets, then just 8 of 20 the rest of the way. Usually, Federer is the player imposing his style of play. This time, he made 59 unforced error, nearly twice as many as Nadal.
"I couldn't really impose my game like I wanted to. He didn't allow me to do that too well today," Federer said. "I can't particularly say my backhand or my forehand was bad or my volley or my serving. It was all OK, you know. It was just a tough opponent."
Only Don Budge and Rod Laver, who did it twice, have ever won a Grand Slam in a calendar year and only three others _ Fred Perry, Roy Emerson and Andre Agassi _ have managed to put one together over the course of a career. Clay courts have been particularly tough on those aspirations.
Pete Sampras, who dominated the game before Federer's ascendance, was only the latest in a long line of players who collected tennis' three other majors and stalled at the French. And both Federer and Sampras can claim some illustrious company _ John Newcombe, Jimmy Connors, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg never won there, either.
After losing to Nadal in the 2005 French Open semifinal, Federer won the next three majors: Wimbledon, the U.S. and Australian Opens; then lost the 2006 French Open final to Nadal and did it again.
Had the Spaniard never come along, chances are good that Federer would have win the last nine majors in a row. But he was in no mood to play what-if.
"I couldn't care less how I played the last 10 months or the last 10 years. At the end of the day," Federer said, "I wanted to win that match."
___
Jim Litke is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at jlitke@ap.org
