I really don't understand this article at all. #1 Serves are still 130+ (Not in this final) and the reason that Federer is such an amazing player is not pure defense. The guy is anything but a retreiver and the same with Nadal. In fact in this match Federer if anyone was playing a MUCH more defensive match than Nadal. Rafa was going for many more shots and connecting impossible angles. Roger was on the defensive constantly... that is why he lost, not because rafa defended well. No matter what in order to win, you have to protect your court, but pure defense at that level doesn't win. Maybe that works at the NTRP 3.0 level, but the reason rafa won was NOT defense. The fact that he is extremely quick and can get to almost anything, doesn't speak to his defensive ability but to athleticism and his shot making ability (full disclosure: I wanted Fed to win and have never been a rafa fan). I feel like this article is reaching for something that just isn't the case. Fed was off his game and kept 2nd guessing approach shots and NOT coming in... instead he stayed at the baseline and traded angles with a very ON rafa. oh yea, and the reason Roddick game doesn't work (and I use NOT work loosely as he is one of the games top players, he's doing something right) is pure ability, not because of an overall change in the game of tennis. No matter what when he gets out on the court its mano-e-mano (sp?) and the "trends" of the game don't matter one bit...

Brandon
http://www.thefreshcan.com
Daily Tennis Deals with a Splash of Personality

I agree, when Borg and Vilas played an entire match and never moved more than 2 steps from position at the baseline, that was a defensive match. Rafa played an all court attack, with 100+ mph passing shots, bizarre angles, crushing overheads and dozens of corner to corner shot combinations. That's not a defensive match. I dig both guys, but still wanted Roger to win, he was a little hesitant at times, and I bet he regrets it.

Yeah, the key to Rafa's defense is how quickly he is able to turn that into offense. It's true that Federer would have to win a point three times against Nadal to get the point, but so did Nadal. There's no one else in men's tennis that is able to do so much with the entire court as Nadal and Federer. And I do agree that Federer did get a bit tentative at times and wasn't playing to his best. I truly believe that when Federer is 100% he's unbeatable.

http://twowhiteboys.com/2008/