It's all very good watching the world Nos 1 and 2 pick off the big prizes. What tennis needs is someone to step in and break it up, ED McGROGAN tells us why. So, how about those French Open quarter-finals? On Monday, I predicted that only one of the four quarter-final matches would reach even four sets – and I was right, aside from picking the wrong match where it occurred. I had a suspicion that this quartet of matches wouldn’t exactly be ESPN Classic material, and not just because of the seedings/ranking disparity. Instead, there were two themes that seemed to contribute to the lopsided result – either one player wasn’t able to rise up to the occasion, or one player’s game was strictly inferior to his opponent’s. In the Djokovic-Andreev and Federer-Robredo matches, the “rising up” theme is the most important to consider. Federer has long established himself as someone who can handle the pressure situations, and Djokovic has started to do so on a more consistent basis this year (reaching two consecutive Masters Series finals in the spring). Clearly, these two had the edge in big game experience over their adversaries. For Novak, he got to face Igor Andreev, who had never made it past the fourth round of a major, and for the most part, hasn’t been in the limelight too often. It was uncharted territory for the unseeded Russian, so it wasn’t terribly surprising to see Andreev falter at times during Wednesday’s match. You could also add Djokovic’s maturity into the equation – and yes, I do believe he has some, in spite of his past comments – as he has shown unbelievable poise for a 20-year-old. Throw in a tennis game that will have Djokovic at No 3 in the world by the end of the year, and it’s good night for Andreev. Tommy Robredo has won a big tournament before – the Hamburg Masters – and has been to the quarter-finals of a Grand Slam as well (three times). But in Robredo’s case, it’s a matter of not being able to rise past this step. The Spaniard’s record at Roland Garros has been consistent, but certainly not consistent enough where you would regard him as a threat to win it all. Robredo has been to the fourth round or better in six of his last seven Grand Slam events. However, he’s never been to a Grand Slam semi-final. It wasn’t about to start against the best player in the world, who looked invincible in the second and third sets. In the other two matches (Moya-Nadal and Canas-Davydenko), the noteworthy theme was not that they couldn’t handle the situation (Moya is a Grand Slam champion), but instead, the games of Canas and Moya simply paled in comparison to the game of the person across the net – who was playing the same style of game as them. Davydenko and Canas each demonstrate a brand of tennis where running down shots, keeping balls in play, and playing excellent defence is essential. They strike winners, but not before they had established the point in their favour. In a comparative sense, Nikolay’s brand of tennis is ultimately better than Canas’ – it’s quicker and more efficient. While they both have similar game plans, Davydenko’s is simply superior. The same goes for Carlos Moya, whose baseline clay game simply can’t match the dominant game that Nadal has perfected over the last few years. It’s ironic that Moya was an inspiration for Nadal, as the younger Mallorcan has honed a game that Moya made famous at Roland Garros – and is now defeating the veteran with it in the process. These four experts of clay showed why they deserved their lofty rankings during the quarter-finals, and made their jobs even easier by playing near perfect tennis, with only a few hiccups along the way. Now, they get to play against each other, in far more intriguing contests. I don’t think anything is going to derail a Federer-Nadal re-match in the final, but I’m definitely expecting matches that go past three sets. Davydenko will never give up, even against Federer, and Djokovic will relish the opportunity to face Nadal once again at Roland Garros. I wouldn’t count on him retiring this time around.
