The misery on clay

Nadal Beats Federer 6-2, 7-5, 6-0 in the French Open 2008. History repeats itself. Only, this time, it strikes you harder.

Is it the end of Roger Federer's reign as the undisputed king of tennis of the millennium? With just two more slams to win before he equals Pete's record of the highest number of grandslam wins, the BIG question running on everyone's mind is, has the steam run out off Roger Federer? Can he beat Pete's record to become the greatest champion of all time? Is the Rafa - Nole brigade too much for Federer to handle at his age? Will he EVER win a French Open title?

The French Open is arguably the toughest slam to win. So why couldn't Roger Federer win the slam when Nadal could? Why didn't Pete win the French, even when there was no Rafa in his time?

Why does the clay evade the best? The more complete players like Roger and Pete?

Yesterday, Roger Federer was just making way too many errors. He tried to conjure various shots from his kitty, but they all deserted him. He came to the net and tried to volley but inevitably, all of them landed up on the net. When he did get them on the other side, the only thing Federer could do was to stare at the ball whizzing past in a glorious Nadal passing shot or as a lob high over him. Do we blame him for his lack of skills at the net? Even the legendary Pete Sampras, arguably the best serve and volley player of all time, couldn't do much and had trouble getting to the finals on clay EVEN against lesser opponents than Nadal, in his time.


Why is this so?
The clay is an unfair surface. It is unfair to a game at the net. Unfair to a single-handed stroke player. Unfair to a game with ANY variety whatsoever. The French Open should henceforth only be equal to half a grandslam! ;)