Federer lacked pop against thoroughbred Nadal

Comparing horses and tennis players? Come on.

But there was at least one thoroughbred playing tennis Sunday. Pardon the expression, but Rafael Nadal was an animal.

Roger Federer must have felt like Big Brown did a day earlier. Federer had no pop in his game.

This great tennis player actually might consider himself lucky that he even won a game off Nadal, much less the whopping total of four games in three sets. Nadal was that much in control of the French Open final.

Federer played so badly early in the match it appeared that the mediocrity might have caused Nadal to drop his defenses. Nadal made that statement with his complete domination before and in the aftermaths of Federer's pair of brief surges.

Consider these facts: After Federer rallied from double-break point to win the third game of the match, Nadal won 25 of the next 28 points; and once Federer evened the second set at 3-3, Nadal won the last nine games of the match. It all added up to a 1-3-0 loss for the player many have called the greatest ever.

The label may be misplaced. Consider this fact: Nadal's fourth French Open title came when he was 34 days older than Federer's age in 2003 when Federer captured his first Grand Slam title by winning Wimbledon.

Nadal, at 22 years old, is almost certainly a better and more complete player today than Federer was five years ago. In another five years, Nadal realistically could be chasing the career Grand Slam record. Just toss in another three or four French titles, and a few Grand Slam successes on grass or hard courts.

Who would have thought that Andre Agassi would have become a career Grand Slammer?

And also remember a fellow named Bjorn Borg. He was only 20 years old when he won his first of five straight Wimbledons in 1976, but he also retired from the game at age 25 with 11 Grand Slam titles. If Borg had played a few more years, he might have put the Grand Slam record out of reach.

Even if Federer or Nadal happen to equal or surpass Pete Sampras' 14 career Grand Slam titles, it will mean only that they are great players, two more in a long line of greats.

It's unfortunate that the broadcast media placed such great pressure on Federer so early in his career by calling him the greatest or possibly the greatest player ever.

History has too many intangibles to toss around such labels. The broadcasters really did Federer a disservice.

Federer third-best?

Right now, Federer may be no better than the third-best player in the game. Wimbledon easily could illustrate that point. It all might depend on whose half of the draw — Federer's or Nadal's — Novak Djokovic is placed.

Federer obviously is still weakened by his battle earlier this year with mononucleosis. On some points, Federer's shot-making ability appeared to be almost surreal, but Nadal's intensity, shots and court coverage turned the flurries into reality as Federer's energy and game melted. Federer's excellence usually lasted only a few moments at a time.

Federer and others are often credited with having the biggest forehands in the game. But no one in tennis hits the ball with greater impact than Rafael Nadal from either side. Heavy spin just reduces the pace of his shots.

Nadal appears to be improving quickly. If he takes this same game to Wimbledon, it will be difficult for anyone to beat him.

Nadal took Federer's backhand apart in the French final. Even Federer may not be strong enough to handle Nadal at Wimbledon, especially if Nadal continues to attack Federer's baseline backhand and then concentrates on Federer's backhand side when Federer goes to the net. Federer's few bright points on Sunday came on his serve, line-splitting forehands and forehand volleys. He seldom came up with a good backhand volley.

This match really wasn't about Federer's play. Nadal was simply too good for him.

Reach James Beck at jdbeck@postandcourier.com.