THE question this match posed was only marginally about who would play possibly Novak Djokovic in the final and potentially win another cup to go on shelves in either Basel or Mallorca that already bow with the bounty of previous victories.This match rather posed the question of whether Roger Federer at 30 and having not defeated the younger man in a grand slam since Wimbledon in 2007, could still beat Rafael Nadal — in a grand slam that is. It was a question you sensed Federer wanted to know the answer to more than anyone.
The answer is no. Nadal last night won in four sets 6-7 (5-7), 6-2, 7-6 (7-5), 6-4. "It's just amazing [the long history with Roger]," said Nadal afterwards, characteristically humble and deferential to Federer. "It's fantastic to have one player in front of me. You saw him with no mistakes he had the complete game. I always saw one player in front of me better than me."
Not now he doesn't. And not for some time. Twice in the last two years Federer had defeated Nadal at consecutive ATP World Tour finals. But in the last dozen meetings between them the record was 9-3 to Nadal and in grand slams the record was poorer — Nadal had won all four matches at slams since that Wimbledon loss.
On this court in 2009 Federer wept upon defeat and the thought that he had ceded his turf — or hard court as the case happened to be — to his rival. On this court, in the first grand slam rematch for them, Federer last night sought to re-claim his ground and re-establish that he was back on even terms with Nadal.
He fell short. Nadal brings something out in Federer that other players, not even world No. 1 Djokovic, elicits.
It is a hesitancy and a uncertainty in his play. He second guesses his movement and choice. Against Nadal he seemed to need to remind himself to get forward, to get to the net, to rumble Nadal's momentum, in ways that he does seemingly without conscious thought against others.
Maybe it is the left-hander thing and that Nadal, playing at the technical and physical level he does, offers angles others do not. Technically that may be the case. Practically the effect of the losses to Nadal is that Federer seems to be play this game on a mental not physical level.
Illustrating the mindset in each of the first three sets, Federer claimed the early break of serve only to cede his later, twice it was in the very next game.
The match was of a level befitting of the players and the moment, and clearly the best of the tournament. Which is not to say it was tennis without fault — Federer's serving was poor, his forehand at times ragged and Nadal tight on his backhand. But the contest was superb. There were fireworks outside the arena which interrupted the match but only appeared dull by contrast to that happening inside. As it should be.
After the first set, which Federer won in a tie-breaker, there was a palpable sense that mentally and in terms of confidence — as if a man with 16 grand slam titles needs confidence — it was more important to Federer that he had done so.
Occasionally the tennis beggared belief. Such as when, in the second set, Nadal lifted a ball almost from the cameraman's lens way off court and squeezed it into the court to set up three break points. Federer saved two but not the third. Nadal had the break. He soon had the set. Federer was under siege. The match was back level but it was Nadal who was on the front foot and Federer clinging on.
Nadal closed it out on his second match point. Once more he had vanquished Roger.
