Berdych displays nerves of steel

In Sergio Leone's classic Spaghetti Western, Tuco tells his assailant, 'I like big...men like you. When they fall they make more noise,' and Roger Federer's loss at Wimbledon certainly made a deafening thump to those who heard it.

There is no schadenfreude to all of this, as Federer is too much of a champion for that. This was simply a beautiful piece of theatre, a grand spectacle played out on the greatest stage.

He holds himself like a champion, and behaves with dignity and grace both on and off the court. The only thing anyone could hold against him is that horrible cream jacket he wears to the trophy presentations. This year, for the first time since 2002, the cream jacket will go unused, and a Wimbledon Men's final will be played without the presence of the Swiss.

The match's script pretty much wrote itself, and as I jotted my notes down on anything I could find, last Friday's copy of the Guardian's film& music pullout section as it happens, I could tell that something special was in the works on Centre Court.

But this should not be about the six-time Wimbledon winner. It should be about the Czech Tomas Berdych, who showed that last month's defeat of Andy Murray in the French Open fourth round was no fluke.

The crowd were appreciative of his play, but there is a special place in the hearts of the faithful for Federer, and right until the end, some still hoped that he could pull off a miracle. The Number One seed dodged one match point, but not a second. He has shown time and time again that in the big points he can pull out an amazing passing shot or a piece of magic, but not today.

His life is not a Disney movie, at least not yet. He tried to rev himself up at least thrice, showing uncharacteristic emotion by yelling 'come on' at the top of his voice, but the A game was not there. He had scraped through (barely) against Alejandro Falla in the first round, making hard work of Ilija Bozoljak, before dispatching Arnaud Clement and Jurgen Meltzer with the minimum of fuss, but Berdych was another proposition entirely.

Dazzled by Berdych's early performance, all John McEnroe could talk about was Czech Ivan Lendl, the eight-time Grand Slam winner, who won his first slam at the age of 24, and is the only player in the last thirty years to win multiple Grand Slams after winning his first after the age of 22. Berdych, now 24, who equalled his best performance at a major today (he had never reached the semis before the French Open last month), will be hoping to buck that trend. Today proved he has the weapons, and perhaps the temperament too.

Meanwhile Federer's first serve came and went throughout the match, and he committed some very un-Federer-like forehands, either shooting way long, or hitting the net, but the most disappointing part of his game was the backhand. In the third set (where the Czech broke Federer twice), the defending Champion's first serve percentage was around 61, but he ended up winning just 43 percent of his second serve points. Some of the credit has to go to Berdych, who kept the Swiss honest, and found the lines with surprising regularity. The former Champion was given very little time, and was manoeuvred around the court just as he would normally do to an opponent.

This is to take nothing away from the Czech, who produced the performance of his life, beating Federer 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 6-4. His 130+ mph serves provided constant problems for his opponent, while his scorching forehand seemed to earn him points at every critical juncture in the match.

After saving one match point, Federer had a break point of his own, and it would have been an incredible twist of irony if the Swiss could have saved a match point and gone on to win, as this was what Berdych had done to Federer in this years' Miami Masters.

Afterwards he said of his victory, 'To play on this stadium, against a player as great as Roger and to be standing here as the winner is absolutely amazing. This was the toughest match of my career to close out, It's a big step forward and I'm so happy.'

The victory sets up an intriguing semi-final with Novak Djokovic on Friday. Back in 2004, Berdych was moved to tears when he beat Federer at Athens in the 2004 Olympic Games. This time there was only a broad grin.

Photo: Alastair Grant: AP

Why Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall 'aint that great

Book review, why not? I have read a book, therefore I can do a review of it. Rather than talk about the book in any great depth, I will spend 600 words slipping in casual references to other books, just to show how intelligent and learned I am compared to your feeble wits. This is how I understand book reviews to be accomplished.

My problem with Wolf Hall is this: it is just lazy, lazy fiction. That is what historical fiction is. 'Well I can't be bothered/don't have the talent to think up a decent plot,' the author says, 'So I'll just nick one from history, complete with characters settings etc. etc. I'll flesh it out with my own style, stick in a few apt metaphors, like the ending of The Great Gatsby, where the light over the water signifies hope, or some shit.'

At times it reads like the Secret Diaries of Adrian Mole. 'Got up, brushed teeth, visited King, read some highly illegal Lutheran works, was made Chancellor of the Exchequer. Saw Joanne, she is fit. Reminds me of her sister. Oh yeah, I remember, her dead sister was my wife.' I kid you not. The present tense narration just comes off as a mess, while ambiguities are hailed as genius plot devices.

The author must have thought herself the height of cunning while writing the plot. Where is the tension? Why should I give a damn. Is this what wins the Man Booker Prize nowadays? Now we have to mention Hilary Mantel, in the same sentence as Salmon Rushdie, Iris Murdoch, William Golding and Kingsley Amis. And it was given the prize because, according to The Times, 'It is not like much else in contemporary British fiction.' Sigh.

Mantel told the Wall Street Journal she spent five years researching and writing the novel, which if true, is laughable. Basically reading any of the dozen or so works criticising G.E. Elton's work on the 16th century would do the job. About ten minutes will do the job.

Let us talk about the political machinations of the court. Yes. Them. Again, the problem is lack of depth. It is a pretty long book, but at times Mantel just gives you fragments of a 16th century newsletter interposed in her prose. The court seems to consist of a couple of servants, Anne Boleyn, her ladies-in-waiting, her uncle, her father, her brother, her uncle, and the King's brother-in-law.

Yes, the Byzantine nature of the Henrician court really keeps the reader on edge. I am sort of told, or expected to believe that anyone in a position of power has the Sword of Damocles dangling above them, and one slip could mean they are skewered. Cromwell is not really that much of a likeable character, so the only way we feel into the book if we are scared for Cromwell, if we fear the King might give him the chop. But we do not, and therefore, in short order, the book flops. The King meanwhile, King Henry VIII that is, sounds from Cromwell's description of him, much the same as John Rohl's portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm II, taken by flights of fancy, and never able to settle. Perhaps that is just me.

Some of the comments about the book just make my mind boggle. The Observer said the following, 'It is that supple movement between laughter and horror that makes this rich pageant of Tudor life her most mundane and bewitching novel.' Perhaps this statement makes sense, or maybe its' author was still suffering from brain freeze after reading WH.

I get the feeling scanning over some of the reviews that some of the critics have simply not enjoyed the book, but have fawned over it anyway, just so they do not get caught out as everyone else hails it as a masterpiece. I suppose these are the sort of people that pass for literary critics nowadays. I imagine they annoy their editors by asking dumb questions such as: Are Iain Banks and Iain M. Banks brothers or father and son?

Also Mantel looks a bit crazy. Can I hold that against her?

And the lame duck ending sucks. Read away masochists, read away!

Yorkshire Lay Down the Law to Nottinghamshire

Friends Provident Twenty20

Headingley Carnegie

Yorkshire Carnegie 162-3 (18.3 overs)

Nottinghamshire Outlaws 158-7 (20 overs)

Yorkshire beat Nottinghamshire by seven wickets

A measured overall performance saw Yorkshire cruise to victory over a lacklustre Nottinghamshire side. Their third successive win saw them leapfrog Lancashire, Derbyshire and Warwickshire into second place, three points behind vanquished Nottingham. The home side were without Tim Bresnan, away on international duty with England, but it was Notts who seemed to struggle without Swann, Broad and Sidebottom.

At one point the visitors had looked in control, knocking their second fifty off just 26 balls. In fact at 100-2 off just 11.2 overs they looked in total command. Notts had recovered from the early dismissals of Brown and Wood, both off Patterson, thanks to a third wicket stand of 86 between Alex Hales and Patel.

Hales' 62 off 43 balls included 3 sixes and 4 fours, taking his Twenty20 tally of runs to 290 in nine innings. His partner at the other end, Patel rattled 41 in 29 balls, but both failed to push on. Patel top edged Richard Pyrah to third man, while Pyrah pulled off a breathtaking catch on the long off boundary to dismiss Hales. From that point on, the Notts innings floundered with Mullaney and Franks unable to really punish the Yorkshire bowlers. Tino Best's second spell helped turned the screw, as did two late run outs.

A score of 158 was never going to be enough, and the Yorkshire batsmen rarely looked troubled on a good pitch. The lightning fast outfield also helped the home batsmen, with most of them using the cut shot to great effect. Captain Chris Gale was the only batsmen not to make runs, as Adam Lyth, South African Herschelle Gibbs, Gerard Brophy and Anthony McGrath all chipped in with solid knocks to take their team to a comfortable victory. Gibbs and Lyth had both gone by the time Yorkshire stood on 101-3, but whereas the Outlaws' innings had stuttered, Yorkshire drove on with Brophy hitting three fours in his first five balls at the crease. He and McGrath had no problems, and from this point onwards the game's result was never in doubt.

Efficient Murray marches on

It is a shame that the Queen does not show up more often when Murray plays. Her presence kept the crowd on their best behaviour- there was none of the 'Come on Andy' motif shouted after every single bloody point, just polite, or enthusiastic applause at times. Murray also wore one red and one white sweatband on his wrists, perhaps an attempt to curry favour with English football fans. The whole thing felt like an audience with the Queen. More cameras seemed to be pointing at the Royal Box than the court itself.

Seated behind the Queen, Tim Henman was probably annoyed by the fact that the Queen never turned up to watch him, although on reflection I wish I could erase his painful defeats by Sampras from my memory. It was the Queen's first visit to Wimbledon since 1977.

It was really a textbook performance by the Scot/Brit, and the thing that stuck out the most was his first serve, which was bang on all match. Murray brushed aside the Finn Jarkko Nieminen 6-3, 6-4, 6-2, in just an hour and 42 minutes. He will face 26th seed Frenchman Giles Simon in the third round.

After he faced and saved four break points in his first service game, he would breeze through the rest of the match without facing another. The most impressive game of the match saw Murray serving for the second set, but 0-30 down. Three straight aces would set up a set point, and the British number one took it without any fuss.

Murray will need to serve like that when he faces tougher opponents later in the competition. Nadal and Federer usually have first service percentages around 70%, while Murray has a career percentage near 52%. Today it was in the mid-60s. He mixed up his game, showing Nieminen lots of different shots. Having brought his entire array of weapons on to court, the Finn had no answer to the barrage coming his way.

Today's performance saw the sort of tennis that Murray has been sorely missing since the Australian Open in January. Although Federer has struggled in his first two matches, I still see him progressing late into the tournament, and still a likely finalist. This grass court season has shown that he is vulnerable (as his loss to Lleyton Hewitt showed), but he will learn from the first two rounds of Wimbledon. Sometimes it takes a bit of a jolt to get you playing at 100%.

England are playing today in the second ODI against the Australians in Cardiff. Eoin Morgan's knock in the first game was an amazing batting display, hitting an unbeaten 103 off 85 balls.

It all gets too much for Landon Donovan, who gets the sniffles after the U.S.A's victory over Algeria.

Murray needs to relax and enjoy himself, his time will come

Some will have caught this piece by Kevin Mitchell of the Guardian interviewing John McEnroe on Andy Murray's chances of winning a Grand Slam, provided you wade through the mandatory dozen pages of world cup coverage last week.

Now 23, Murray is beginning to be frustrated by the fact that his maiden grand slam victory has not yet arrived. McEnroe believes it will come, but not at Wimbledon. The pressure being so great at SW19, and considering his game is more suited to the hard court, he thinks that the U.S. Open will be the perfect opportunity for the Scot, or Brit, or whatever the English media is calling him.

Still, considering McEnroe had 4 Grand Slam titles under his belt at 23, it is hard to see that the American understands Murray's conundrum. He sees Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro, all with their first slams under their respective belts at 21, 18, 20 and 20.

If you go back and look at every grand slam winner in the last thirty years (1980 onwards), you see that only 11 of those 35 players won their first grand slam after the age of 23. Juan Carlos Ferrero is the only one of that group to win his first (and only) at 23. Even worse, only one of those 11 players went on to win more than one, and that was the Czeck Ivan Lendl (the other nine are: Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, Thomas Johansson, Brian Teacher, Peter Korda, Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa, Thomas Munster and Andres Gomez). But Lendl went on to win seven more, so maybe Murray can too. Gomez was 30 when he won the 1990 French Open, while Korda was also 30 when he won the 1998 Australian Open. All you need is your best tennis for two whole weeks and a big slice of luck.

If he wants to win a slam, of course Murray has to bring his A-game, but there are two big obstacles in his way, in the form of Nadal and Federer. The Swiss is so good in Grand Slam finals, you almost feel that for Murray to win a slam, he would have to play Federer before the final. Federer may have retained his number one seeding for Wimbledon because of his six tournament wins, but Nadal is the top of the ATP rankings, and were he to say, beat Federer in the Wimbledon final, as he did in 2008, it might see the Swiss seeded number two for the U.S. Open. And that could, and I say could mean a semi-final tie with Murray in two months time at Flushing Meadows.

As for Wimbledon, Murray has avoided the kind of draw he encountered in Roland Garros. Murray's quarter of the draw contains Fernando Verdasco and Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, potential quarter-final opponents, but apart from potential fourth-round opponents in Sam Querrey, the finalist at Queens, or the Spaniard Ferrero, he should find it easy enough to get into the second week. In comparison he had the headache of facing Richard Gasquet, Juan Ignacio Chela, Marcos Bagdhatis and Tomas Berdych in Paris in the first four rounds. No wonder he looked out of it for the match with the Czech.

Perhaps the distraction of the World Cup will aid him in avoiding the hype that has been a hindrance rather than help in recent years (Henmania or Murray-mania has never done a player any good, ever). There is also the added spur of eclipsing the English performance, although some might turn to him for consolation if England do indeed crash out, much like 2006 when England were beaten by Portugal on the same day that Murray produced a sensational performance to top third-seed Andy Roddick in straight sets.

Murray needs to enjoy himself out on the court, as McEnroe points out, and not let himself be shackled by national expectation. The England-Algeria game was a fine example of how much damage it can do to a sportsman's confidence. If you do not enjoy it, is there any point in being out there on court?

Appetite for Self-Destruction

Whitmarsh Gambles....and Wins

They say that Formula One is the scream of science, yet it must have been the gnashing of Christian Horner's teeth that provided the musical percussion inside a quiet and disconsolate Red Bull garage after today's race. Horner gives a cool-headed performance in front of the cameras, but behind the scenes he must have given his drivers a severe tongue-lashing after a catastrophic conclusion to the Turkish GP.

Jubilation has turned to trepidation, evident in comparing Mark Webber's post-race reactions. In Monaco it was all smiles, as the Australian back-flipped into a swimming pool. In Turkey, he could only moodily stare into the distance, as he failed to enjoy his third-place podium finish, safe in the knowledge that he would be participating in a stark post-mortem.

Two weeks ago Horner saw his teams' efforts sabotaged by the hotheadedness of his own drivers. Canada heralded the same result, a McLaren one-two, but this time it was due to a fantastic hot-lap from Lewis Hamilton during qualifying combined with a huge gamble by McLaren on tyre selection.

His McLaren counterpart Martin Whitmarsh could only wax lyrical, as his huge gambit, sending both his drivers to the third stage of qualifying on the soft green-striped option tyre, paid off. Meanwhile the Red Bulls went for the harder tyre, both knowing that they would have to start the race on that tyre. Hamilton nailed down pole position with the final lap of qualifying, while both McLarens found themselves ahead of both Red Bulls after the first wave of pit stops. Sebastian Vettel, who finished the race fourth, would later moan about back-markers, telling reporters that 'halfway through I had a lapped car which didn't want to move which lost me six seconds each time, and in the end I wasn't able to fight for the podium any more,' but the real reason was that McLaren's tactics trumped the Red Bulls'.

Reports on Saturday had suggested that rain was forecast to start right around midday, just as the race started, while Whitmarsh seemed to suggest after qualifying that his strategy banked on an early safety car. The soft option tyre would only last a half-dozen laps, so both his drivers would benefit from the commotion that a safety car brings. The rain showers never materialised, nor did a safety car, even after Kamui Kobayashi drove his Sauber into the 'champions wall,' with the Japanese driver managing to park his car off the race track.

Both McLarens were forced to pit early, harassed by Red Bulls on the harder- prime tyre, but since both slotted into clear track positions, they were able to eat into Vettel and Webber's lead, as both experienced a massive amount of tyre degradation. All the teams were then forced on to what seemed like a three-stop strategy, but all the drivers were forced onto a two-stopper, after it transpired that none had any sets of prime tyres left. Managing tyres therefore was at a premium, and of the front runners, it seemed as if Jenson Button had managed that the best, holding off Vettel for thirty or so laps, before taking Fernando Alonso on the fifty-sixth lap of seventy to take second place from the Spaniard.

The feeling in the paddock is that Red Bull have squandered their superiority, an advantage at the start of the season that was felt by many insiders to be greater than the one enjoyed by Brawn GP last season. Whereas Button romped home to six wins in the first seven races, seven straight poles for Red Bull only saw three wins. They have enjoyed no such domination, and it is the two Britons who now lead the Championship race, Hamilton then Button.

A mechanical problem meant Vettel slipped behind both Ferraris in Bahrain, a rear brake failure cost the German another victory amidst wet conditions in Australia, while a gutsy call of tyres saw Button take victory in China. The incident in Turkey then, was one of a catalogue of occasions when Vettel has thrown away points.

Whereas Webber and Vettel seem be at each others' throats, the McLaren duo finished the race chatting animatedly, like two teenage boys having got off a roller-coaster where nothing will do but that they describe the experience to each other in the most minute detail. Their respective championship wins have banished the insecurities that now plague Webber and Vettel.

And to compound this misery, Red Bulls' two biggest rivals have planned upgrades on the way. Ferrari have new parts on the way for Valencia in two weeks, while McLaren will have significant improvements ready for their home race of Silverstone. Advantage McLaren, for now.

And the rest of the GP.....

Meanwhile both Schumacher and Massa's afternoons were spoiled by a pair of Force Indias: the seven-time world champion was passed by both of them on the final lap, ensuring he would finish the day with no points, while the young Brazilian had so many incidents with the two, including an incident with Antonio Liuzzi on the second corner. Nico Rosberg and Robert Kubica seemed not to be affected by anything else that happened on the track, as they finished sixth and seventh respectively without incident. The Pole returned to the track that nearly cost him his life in 2007, while also providing his maiden F1 victory a year later.

Nadal still the 'King of Clay'

Just as Robin Soderling had exposed Roger Federer's vulnerability on clay, his match against Rafael Nadal similarly proved the Spaniard's invincibility on the orange surface. The new world number two, Federer, will have the first chance to equal Pete Sampras' record number of Wimbledon titles, but this time next year, barring injuries the 'King of Clay' will take aim at Bjorn Borg's six French Open crowns.

It was not a faultless performance by Nadal, who beat the Swede 6-4, 6-2, 6-4; but at times his play was imperious as he cruised to another clay court title, finishing the season having lost just two sets on the surface in 2010, one to Ernest Gulbis at Rome, the other to Nicholas Almagro at Madrid.

On Sunday Soderling was aiming for something that only one other player has achieved, to beat both Nadal and Federer in the same Grand Slam tournament. The only other player to have achieved it was Juan Martin Del Potro, who beat them both on the way to victory in the U.S. Open last year. He may not have pulled it off, but he joined a select group of players, that have, along with Nadal, beaten Federer in a Grand Slam since 2003; only Marat Safin, David Nalbandian (twice), Novak Djokovic, Luis Horna, Gustavo Kuerten and Del Potro have managed it. He was close to another piece of history, aiming to be the eighth player in the Open Era to beat both number one and two seeds in the same Grand Slam. The last time player to do it was Sergi Bruguera, who beat both Sampras and Jim Courier in the 1993 French Open.

The Swede can be proud of his performances leading up to the final at Roland Garros, and his play was brilliant at times, but Nadal is a brilliant player, and herein lies the difference between the two players. After the Spaniard withstood the initial barrage, and took the first set, there was only going to be one winner. Soderling wilted in the second, after fluffing a handful of break point opportunities. From that point on his body language suggested even he did not see a way back against the man-mountain that Nadal has become on clay. Every time he would manufacture an opportunity, he would see it snuffed out by Nadal's brilliance. From tight angles, often on the run, off balance, or mid-slide Uncle Toni's favourite nephew would pull out seemingly impossible winners, much to the dismay of the Soderling, who saw eleven break point chances come and go.

Seven of these were in the first set, and after Nadal had squeaked home, and started the second with a break of serve, Soderling had a chance to break straight back. Having left the door open, Nadal shut it with imperceptible coolness, depriving his opponent any momentum to build a comeback on.

The fifth seed used his forehand to good effect early on, but the problem was that hitting it cross-court sent it straight to the left-handed Nadal's strength. His first serve had been a great asset for him all tournament long, but it deserted him in the second set, and a forty-one percentage on first serves is not good enough against adversaries of the Spaniard's quality. As good as Nadal is, he gave his opponent very few cheap points. Mixing up his game, in particular using his slice to great effect, Soderling was kept off balance for most of the match, and looked ill at-ease when drawn into the net.

To beat Nadal at anywhere near his best, you have to be at your best for five sets, and Soderling reached the heights on occasion, he could not sustain it. Aggressive from the start, he strove not to let the new world number one dictate rallies, and sought to end rallies as quickly as possible (getting sucked into long and brutal rallies with the Spaniard is not a winning tactic, especially on clay). While this aggressive approach was the only feasible tactic, it meant that errors were an ever present feature of his game, as many balls flew long or ended up in the net. Still, he can take solace in the fact that he remains the only man to have beaten Nadal on the clay courts of Roland Garros, but this match lends credence to the arguments that the Spaniard was far below optimum fitness this time last year. Having achieved his fifth title, and regained his crown as French Open Champion, Nadal seemed overwhelmed, covering his face before receiving his prize.

He has still to encounter his equal at Roland Garros, but later this month will find Federer a more challenging proposition on the grass of Wimbledon as the Swiss eyes Sampras' seven titles. Borg will have to wait.

Photo is the property of Reves(PictFactory).

They just will not go away: the French Open and Rafael Nadal

Even as every time Roger Federer steps onto a tennis court he enshrines himself further and further into tennis immortality, at the same he becomes less and less legendary. This may be a strange observation to make of a player who until today had gone six years without losing before the semi-final stage in a Grand Slam. Before this years' French he had reached eight straight Grand Slam finals, dating back to his defeat at the hands of Novak Djokovic in the 2008 Australian Open.

Soderling beat the world number one for the first time in his career, having been defeated in their twelve previous meetings, including a comprehensive beating in last year's final in Paris. After his victory, he said 'As soon as I got here, immediately I felt confidence. I've played better and better every match and today I played really well. It cannot be much better. It's great to play on this court and it's for sure my favourite grand slam. To play the world number one on this court, it couldn't be better.' He will play Tomas Berdych, Andy Murray's conqueror, for a place in the final.

Soderling's performance was all the greater as it was delivered in front of a rather hostile Parisian crowd that has not seen a French Open final without Federer in it since 2005, when he was knocked out in the semis by, you guessed it, Rafael Nadal. This was their third meeting, and first of eight meetings in Grand Slam events. And the last time Federer was knocked out of a grand slam before the semi-final stage was in 2004, when Brazilian and champion grunter Gustavo Kuerton beat him in straight sets in the third round of the French, a run of twenty-three straight semi-finals. Even in defeat, the size of the Swiss' achievement looks even greater.

If there are any blots on Federer's copy book, it seems clear what they are, Rafael Nadal, and Roland Garros. Sometimes even both at once. If not for them, we might be calling him the best, rather than one of the best. Nadal has been a perennial thorn in Federer's side, as the Swiss has lost fourteen of their twenty-one meetings, losing the latest in this year's Madrid Open final. Five of those have come in Grand Slam finals. Nadal has won twelve of their seventeen meetings in finals, six out of eight in Grand Slams, five out of seven in Grand Slam finals, and ten out of twelve on clay.

This would mean that Federer has the edge when the two play on a surface other than clay, with five wins out of nine on hard courts and grass. In the Open Era Federer holds the record for most consecutive wins on grass (65) and hard courts (56), with Nadal having the record on clay (81). Perhaps Federer has simply had the misfortune to play at the same time as one of the greatest players on clay, ever.

This mode of reasoning punishes Federer for not winning his title by beating Nadal, and at the same praises the Spaniard's achievement, even when his record looks a lot more ordinary if we ignore his four French Open victories. But the fact is Nadal was superior on clay, Federer on grass. After Nadal lost two straight Wimbledon finals to the Swiss, he worked on his game until he emerged victorious in the final to beat all finals, emerging from a five-set thriller as the 2008 Wimbledon Champion. Federer might have finally captured the elusive French Open title, and done what only Andre Agassi and Rod Laver have done in the Open Era, but he did it without going through Nadal, who had been knocked out by Soderling, in part down to tendinitis in both knees, a problem that kept him from defending his Wimbledon title a month later.

Some will say this is far too harsh on the man who has won sixteen Grand Slam titles in the space of six and a half years. His struggles at Roland Garros look tiny compared to those of Pete Samprasa titan in is own era, but still a man who struggled whilst playing on clay. Sampras managed to get past the third round just four times, and never made a final. He is still one of only three players to win all four slams in the Open Era along with Laver and Agassi.

Until Federer does indeed beat Nadal at the French, a chance he may never get again, questions will remain unanswered.