It’s that time of year again: another Monday, another Rafael Nadal column. The guy may not be No. 1, but he’s got the spring locked up—at this point he’s about as reliable as May flowers. On Saturday, I found myself rooting for his semifinal opponent in Barcelona, Nicolas Almagro, who has been the other story of the clay season so far, just so I would have something else to write about this week. Nope, should have known by now—it’s nothing but Nadal.
Not that I mind, really. Along with Roger Federer, the kid is raising the stature of today’s game by putting himself in the company of its gods. Federer recently passed Bjorn Borg in number of weeks spent at No. 1; Nadal has now passed the Swede to move into second place in number of consecutive clay-court matches won, with 47 (he’ll go after Guillermo Vilas’ record 53 in Rome and Hamburg later this month). This is pretty scary company for a 19-year-old. Borg is the greatest clay-courter in history, a guy who won the French Open six times in just eight tries (he was an insane 100-6 at the French and Wimbledon for his career). Nadal, who’s nothing if not realistic, acknowledged that it’s still a bit early to hear his name mentioned with Borg’s. "You can't compare me to Borg, he was the greatest tennis player of all time," Nadal said. "I can't see myself winning five Wimbledons." (I wonder if that means he can see himself winning six French Opens.)
Nadal passed Borg with a dominating 6-4, 6-4, 6-0 performance against Tommy Robredo, a Barcelona native who won this tournament two years ago. Actually, “dominating” isn’t quite right. For a top player, Nadal rarely wins easily, at least in first sets, and yesterday the first two were tight. It’s a mark of his killer instinct and clutch play that he won those two sets while garnering just three break points.
I’ve written a lot about Nadal recently, including an article for an upcoming issue of TENNIS Magazine about his budding rivalry with Federer, so I’ll save you the repetition and just mention a few things that came to mind as I watched the Barcelona final.
—Nadal is always the second guy out to start a match; he waits until his opponent is bouncing around anxiously at the baseline before he stops sipping his water and gets up from his sideline chair. I’ve mentioned this before, but I thought about it again yesterday as I watched Robredo wait impatiently for him—what would happen if Nadal's opponent refused to go out first? I can only assume that the match would never begin.
—While Nadal was never in trouble, I felt, not for the first time, that his level of play drops when he’s not playing Federer. He has said that he plays more aggressively against Fed, and on Sunday he was more conservative, particularly with his backhand, than hehad been in the final last week in Monte Carlo. Not that Nadal needs to change anything right now, but why not play more aggressively in every match? He might save some time.
—Like Borg, part of what makes Nadal so tough on clay is his ability to lengthen the court by standing well behind the baseline and using his speed to cover the extra ground. Even when Robredo cracked what looked like deep, penetrating shots, they ended up in Nadal’s wheelhouse. No matter where or how hard the ball was hit, he had plenty of time to react.
—Robredo does not have a world-beating backhand, but it was just awful yesterday, one feeble shank and sprayed ball after another. It’s hard to think of these as unforced errors against Nadal, though: The weight and spin of his forehand, even when he’s just hitting neutral rally balls, can be all that's necessary to throw his opponent off.
—Nadal won the first two sets and went up 4-0 and two breaks in the third. The next game was a long one in which Robredo had his chances to hold. But even with the match already won, Nadal gave him nothing. After six deuces, he finally got a third break to go up 5-0.
—The getup: This week Nike had Nadal in a calmer white shirt with green stripe, dark capris, and white sneakers. The signature Rafa look was preserved but made much more "tennis." Big improvement.
I’ve liked reading the recent back and forth between Federer and Nadal fans in the comments section of this blog. The sport is about matchups first and foremost, not individual players—Borg and McEnroe, Evert and Navratilova are more memorable as pairs. Hopefully Federer and Nadal will be as well. As one commenter said, Federer’s game has elegance, and while Nadal’s game may not, his style is exciting. As for who is the better guy, etc., I think each of them is genuinely sporting—and not above playing the occasional mind game.
It’s not often in tennis that you can count on not one, but two players to produce something special every single time they walk out on a court. That makes them worth watching. It’s also not often that the No. 1 and 2 players in the world have such perfectly contrasting styles and personalities. That makes them worth fighting over.
I've wondered reading the comments, What makes someone a Federer or Nadal fan? Do the old-schoolers go for Federer, and kids for Nadal? For myself, I prefer watching Nadal because he keeps it interesting: I'm never quite sure he's going to win, until he does.