It's hard to see how my predictions could have been further off. I picked Henin-Hardenne in two and Nadal in five. As we all know, it was Mauresmo in three and Federer in four.
The first one was the real surprise. Henin-Hardenne folded and Mauresmo kept her game and her nerve together as the match crept to its quiet conclusion. I thought H-H could block her returns at Mauresmo’s feet, but it was the Frenchwoman who controlled the action with her serve and wide angles. She made Henin-Hardenne pay for her lack of range. H-H’s timing also looked off on her forehand—even on the last point, she barely made the shot right before the her final error, on a point where she must have realized that all she had to do was stay steady and wait for Mauresmo’s nerves to hurt her. Frankly, when Mauresmo caught her first-serve toss on match point, I thought we may be in for another Novotna-style seizure. First, Kuznetsova lets a shaky Henin-Hardenne off the hook on match point at the French, now Henin-Hardenne returns the favor. I guess it's true: One point can make a huge difference.
What did you think of the men’s final? It seemed simple on TV—the player who could get the rally to go from his forehand to the other guy’s backhand generally won the point. Early on, Federer made Nadal play a lot more backhands than he usually has to on clay; in the second, Nadal turned the tables. Even on grass, you could see Federer was fighting an uphill battle from his backhand side. John McEnroe says he should slice his backhand, but there’s really no reliable option for Fed when Nadal has him in that position.
The key was Nadal’s gag while serving at 5-4 in the second. As he said afterward, there was no finish line in sight after that. He made forehand errors in that game, which was weird, but if there’s one chink in his mental armor, it’s been serving out sets at 5-4 against Federer this year. He blew one in Monte Carlo, and he lost his serve when he was trying to finish off the French final. The kid’s human, and he finally looked it on Sunday. He shanked easy balls, popped up his drop shots, smacked an overhead into the backstop, and even shook his head in resignation during the last game. There certainly wasn’t much fight in him on the last point—could the end have been any lamer, a little slice that went wide, of all things? Still, the biggest thrill of the afternoon came when he won the third-set tiebreaker and did an open-mouthed, fist-pumping, backward high-step to his chair. Who did he think he was, Jimmy Connors at Flushing Meadows? As for Federer, his superior serve was a key, he finally let loose on a few ground strokes (particularly late in the match), and, for once against Nadal, he used his trademark short crosscourt backhand effectively.
Just as important, though, what do we think of the Federer jacket, now that he seems to be attached to it like a child with his blanket? I’m not in favor. I know Nike made it for him, but it’s as if the winner’s trophy is no longer good enough for Federer. He’s got his own Masters-style green jacket. It’s not much different than if Nadal decided to bring that clay-streak trophy he got in Paris onto the court with him every time he played a match on clay. What would Federer have to say about that? What would he say if next year, Nike makes a “King of Clay” boxing robe for Nadal to wear at the French, Nadal wears it during the trophy presentation, and then says, “Great job, Roger, I didn’t think you were going to make the final, so well done.”
I’ve got work to do, but I’ll be back tomorrow to go over the suicide pool and do a wrap-up of Wimbledon as a whole.