Firstly, well done to Rafa, who has his third Roland Garros title! :D

However, the final, in terms of the wuality of tennis, was actually a pretty big damp squib. Neither player was firing at the same time, Roger was tentative again as he was pre-Hamburg, Nadal looked pretty nervous until near the end, and generally we didn't get anything near the classic we craved. Dress it up all you like, but I was flicking channels at times!

Roger has got to be more aggressive, be prepared to take the ball on more on the clay. More than anything, his clay footwork has to improve. There were so many errors he made today which were just down to the fact he didn't get himself in the right position to hit a particular shot (especially with the forehands) and it's nopt the first time he's done it on the clay!

Bring on the Grass anyway! :D

Wow no response - maybe it was such a good post that no-one could find anything wrong with what i've said... :rolleyes:

Yes it wasn't the classic tight 5 setter we'd hoped for and Fed just seemed to lose all self belief after the third set break. :(

true the match just lasted over three hours.Federer's form throughout this tourney was not that impressive.As fed himself said that he could have lost in three sets to Davy.It was just flashes of brilliance we could see. Nothing of the vintage Fed.Nevertheless here comes the grass.

No, i think it was you avatar :yikes:

Not a classic, no. Neither player was at their best, but I've seen far worse finals, and it was probably a slight improvement on last year's final. There were a lot of unforced errors, but also quite a few very entertaining points, tucked away during the match. Did see some quality backhands and exquisite volleys from Federer, and some insane angled shots and incredible defensive play from Nadal.

So, not a classic match, but certainly not an embarrassment either - much better than the ladies' final, and both Nadal and Federer produced some tantalising glimpses of their brilliance.

It was very dissappointing. Better than last year but never really caught fire. Federer showe he'd got the goods to crack Nadal and created the opportunites, but failed to take advantage of them. He played some great stuff, but he never strung it together, far too inconsistent. There were some great points, but too many of them ended in a Federer unforced error. If onyl there had been a 5th set I think it woudl have recovered. I must say as a viewer I felt that my apetite for tennis wasnt; satisfied. Especially as this match was hyped up to be THE match of the tourny.

For me, the final last year was actually better, there was a sense of inevitability about Nadal winning yeasterday, after the way Fed played to lose the first set and then the way he started the third set I just *knew* he was going to lose.

At least last year you didn't really know what was going to happen, that's how it felt for me anyway, and Fed broke Nadal when he was serving for the match last year too and took it to a tie breaker which i found very tense.

All in all the fourth set a very resigned feel to it for me. Not a bad match by an stretch of the imagination though, very far from being a classic.

:o I must be the only person who did enjoy the match. Of course it wasn't a classic but there were flashes of brilliance and some dam fine rallies at times. As said already on this thread, better than the ladies final. Maybe it helped being a Nadal fan. :D

probably :)

disappointing indeed.

Yeah the 4th set was very resigned indeed. I was hoping for a repeat fo last year's break from Fed and a tie breaker, that was the highlight last year.

I just got so frustrated with Federer - when he was positive and attacked the ball he looked by far the better player of the two. Why he didn'tdo it all of the time (especially in the 10 break points in the first set) i'll never know.

I actually thought Federer looked shattered by the middle of the third set also.

Fed could certainly do with some lessons in fighting spirit and tenacity from Rafa.

thats exactly what i thought. which begs the question, if he isnt capable of recognising what he has to do to win a winnable match, can he even be considered GOAT????

I enjoyed it Mo, well, except for the result of course :P

It's hard for Federer to play such attacking tennis over the course of a 5 set match. It'll work for a set and a half maybe, but the level of hitting will eventually drop and then nadal will take his chances. Nadal realises momentum swings more than anyone else on clay( like jUstine on the women's side) and knows when are the moments to start motoring.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I would suspect those who most found it disappointing are really just disappointed about the result. B)

I thought it was a class final - but not classic. (But it's a bit daft to expect each and every one to be Rafter v Ivanisevic or Clijsters v Capriati!) As compared to last year, the tennis was better (mainly because Nadal's playing style has improved rather, and Federer did provide his trademark brilliance though clearly not enough of it consistently), but in terms of drama it fell short, for the reasons SW pointed out. Not only did the result seem a bit more inevitable this time round, as Nadal took control of the match from the start of the third set onwards and never really let Federer back into it, but last year we had that bit of suspense where Federer broke Nadal as he served for the title, and it went into a tiebreaker - there was a definite sense that if Federer pulled out the tiebreaker the fifth set was probably his for the taking.

As Slam finals go I think it did well for itself - this year's AO was a bit dire and not really compelling once Gonzalez squandered double set point, but we hadn't had a straight sets final otherwise since Federer's romp against Roddick at Wimbledon 2005. In fact I think almost all of those since have gone one set-all (except for last year's Wimbledon which still at least went to four), which as far as suspense and competitiveness goes is the best start as it suddenly becomes a best-of-three.

As a final note I will add that previously Nadal v Federer almost inevitably featured at least one tiebreaker and often two (Miami final, Monte Carlo final, Rome final, last year's RG final, Wimbledon final), but this year straightforward scorelines seem to be the order of the day. That's a trifle disappointing.

Don't agree with that at all - he does it on other surfaces all the time!

And anyway, there is no feasible reason why he should be positive and have aggressive footwork and hence shiotmaking one point, the standing off on the next one. I found it really strange.

Watched a repeat of the 1st 2 sets last night on French TV and it has to be said that when Fed was playing his best(or near to it!)he was more than a match for Rafa :D Sure this has been debated many times before ,but how much do people feel Fed's problems against Nadal are due to Rafa being left-handed?

Fed attacked rafa in the 2nd set thru serve and volley,which Rafa could not play at all.But Rafa's steely resolve got him thru in the second and third sets.It was all back to square one again.As far as Rafa being a lefty is concerened,sure it is one of the major obstruction for Fed.But there is lot more to Rafa's patience on clay and his ability to retrieve balls that works in his favor too.

It wasn't just serve-volley though - Fed was generally at his most positive and decisive in that second set, and, all said and done, had he attacked on the break points in the first set, he would have won it and we would now probably be drooling over a potential Fed grand slam...

Sure Fed was gutted to have missed out on that historic chance.He certainly looked close to tears at end.Still,I suppose it wasn't to be-too many missed break points.Has Fed ever missed that many in one match I wonder?

Not sure Fr, but the thing is, in the first set Fed was serving so many second serves, even if he had broken, it was more than likely Nadal would have broken back at some point. The problem was for Fed in the third Rafa was playing so much better and it's so difficult mentally to keep attacking someone who can get as many balls back as Nadal....

Yes his 1st serve percentage in the 1st was a dire 33%.Amazing he got so many break points!

It was really low in the semis has well, if he had been able to get his first serve up to 60 or 70 to hold a bit more easily it would have helped his cause no end, we might have had 5 sets then!

But the thing was SW19, largely, when Fed played the points aggressively, Nadal wasn't getting many balls back! It's not as if he would have felt he was playing a wall, he was knocking holes in it!

The serve percentage was terrible in the first set, but Fed probably should have broken three time (seriously!). Had that happened I think the serve % would have risen too.

For the first time I actually am now doubting Fed is going to be the GOAT - the one quality I am not certain about with him yet is a fighting quality, which all greats have to have!

Hmm yes true, he really didn't take his chances did he! And as you say he's not as much of a fighter as some great players, he more of a front runner.