Sounding Off

Cubs will prevail in NL Central

2009-06-20T21:55:00Z

This blog comes to an end today. It started eight years ago, during the Summer of Bonds. Now, my world is changing from baseball to football (new voice of the 49ers), and so it’s a good time for a change.

Talent most often prevails in baseball, thus this season’s NL Central race should be a replay of last year’s tremendous Cubs-Brewers duel. A synopsis of how this race should unfold.

CAN MILWAUKEE’S BULLPEN HOLD THIS PACE? Unlikely. The Brewers are holding form with their hitting, fourth in the NL. Their starting pitching has survived the double hit of the offseason loss of CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets. But it’s the bullpen that has shocked with a .215 OBA, lowest in the NL by 14 points. It isn’t just closer Trevor Hoffman, but also Mark DiFelice, Todd Coffey, Carlos Villanueva, and funky lefty Mitch Stetter, who form a stout group. How can this group maintain that pace? And when they slip, it looks like the Brewers don’t have enough starting pitching to stop a slide.

HOW DO THE CARDINALS DO IT? No one extracts more from his team than manager Tony La Russa. No one extracts more from his staff than pitching coach Dave Duncan, and here are the Cardinals, the opposite of the Brewers, with the NL’s third best starting pitching. Duncan’s best work has been with Ryan Franklin, a true Lazarus, who has resurfaced as the closer with astonishing success. Can it last? Unless Rick Ankiel and ~~Eric~~ Ryan Ludwick get hot in the second half and approach their 2008 production, the superb Albert Pujols can’t carry the load.

CINCINNATI IS BETTER…and that’s a credit to manager Dusty Baker and general manager Walt Jocketty, a tandem that has finally changed the Reds’ mindset. It should be no surprise to those who know Baker, for that is his forte. What hasn’t fully kicked in is the offense, which is 14th in OPS in the NL. Not enough walks and still unfinished production from Jay Bruce. Joey Votto’s eventual return from an inner ear infection could help. The Reds can pitch as Johnny Cueto is blossoming, and if Edinson Volquez returns for a healthy second half, they may hang in this race longer than expected.

BUT THE CUBS STILL HAVE THE HORSES. How can this team be 13th in runs per game? With its roster, it will eventually score. Doesn’t Alfonso Soriano have to rebound from a horrid offensive first half? Same with Geovany Soto? Aramis Ramirez should be back in July and won’t that help? Assume Carlos Zambrano and Rich Harden pitch a full second half, and the rotation looks brilliant. Doesn’t Carlos Marmol have to find his control and won’t that help the bullpen match the best in their division? How can this team lose?

JULY 31. Here’s the wild card, no pun intended. The Cubs have too much invested, and a sale pending, to lose their momentum. After two playoff flops the last two years, they have too much to prove. This group gets no free pass. If general manager Jim Hendry needs help, he makes the trades in late July. Milwaukee struck early last year for CC Sabathia, and it triggered a sequence of moves. I don’t think Hendry lets Milwaukee general manager Doug Melvin get the jump this year.

Trading MLB draft picks bad idea

2009-06-18T20:17:00Z

Six weeks ago, the NFL held its draft and no one wanted to pick in the Top 10. Too expensive, they said, were the top choices relative to their impact on a team’s fortunes. Teams actively sought to trade OUT of the top 10 and only one, the Jets, was willing to deal in. Rumor even spread that Detroit might pass on its first pick and choose later in the top 10 simply to reduce the signing bonus owed.

Last week, MLB held its draft and there was no doubt Washington, picking first, would choose Stephen Strasburg even with the cloud overhead of his agent being Scott Boras.

Why? Teams can’t trade picks, raising the question should they be allowed to deal?

After a lot of thought and some wavering, I have settled on no.

Here’s my reasons:

TEAMS MUST BE FORCED TO IMPROVE. Give a weak team, or worse one unwilling to spend, an excuse to avoid top draft picks and mediocrity is encouraged. If Washington doesn’t like the negotiation with Boras or the money it will inevitably spend on Strasburg, then there is a remedy, make the team better. That’s the best way to guarantee no repeat of the problem. Baseball has seen Pittsburgh and Kansas City flounder for too long, allowing those teams to trade away from taking the best players in the draft is not a way to make the weak sisters strong.

REMOVE PLAYER LEVERAGE. Look at football as far back as John Elway, as recent as Eli Manning, players have manipulated the draft. Baseball is now paying ridiculous bonuses to college and high school kids, but despite all of Boras’ efforts, the players have little choice. If Strasburg doesn’t want to play for Washington, he sits for a year and that hasn’t always worked well (re: Harrington, Matt).

SOCIALISM JUSTIFIED. If revenue sharing continues, how can a team justify pleading poverty? In the Bay Area, the Giants, who pay a $20 million annual mortgage on the ballpark they built, also pay into revenue sharing. The A’s, spinning their wheels while they attempt to plot a ballpark course, take in $30 million from their partners. How would the payers feel if the payees claimed they couldn’t sign a Strasburg while they deposit the welfare checks?

PLAYER DEVELOPMENT JUSTIFIED. I know of one MLB team which had an owners meeting several years back in which the question of a minor league system was raised. As in why do we have one? Why don’t we spend that money on free agents each year instead of wasting it on a system with little yield? That rant is a true story. As unreal as it sounds, intelligent minds discussed the question. Well, Tampa Bay showed why last year. And the Dodgers are showing why this year. But it wouldn’t hurt the cause to force teams to keep picks and utilize to the fullest extent their scouting and farm systems.

MONEYBALL. Trade draft picks and there would have been no Moneyball, thus no Brad Pitt as Billy Beane. Reason enough, don’t you think.

Phelps-mania still runs wild

2009-06-15T17:16:00Z

The Santa Clara Swim Club has a proud history of producing elite swimmers and hosting a prestigious invitational every June. But they never had a June like this as their online ticket system crashed Saturday, lines to buy tickets snaked around the perimeter fence over an hour before Sunday’s first race, and they were forced to hire two full-time security people.

All because of Michael Phelps. He is swimmer as rock star.

Now, this wasn’t Charlotte, Phelps’ return meet, where the crush was both fans and media. In Northern California, excitement builds more slowly, and Friday’s opening night generated barely a ripple on the Bay Area scene. By Saturday afternoon, more than just swim heads knew Phelps was in town. And on Sunday, the interest peaked as Phelps competed twice.

Phelps went 2 for 4 in his second competition since returning from a three-month suspension by USA Swimming after a photo of him using a marijuana pipe surfaced. He won the 200 butterfly on Friday and the 400 free Saturday. He was beaten in the 100-meter freestyle and 100 backstroke Sunday night

It was clear why they came as when Phelps marched in to the pool for each final, the eye saw nothing but cameras, cell phones and other handheld devices recording the moment. When Summer Sanders interviewed Phelps on the NBC Universal Sports telecast, hundreds pressed against the rail to catch a word if not a glimpse. After Phelps finished his Saturday race, the line of autograph-seeking kids seemed endless.

I wondered if anyone has a problem with Phelps-mania. Answers came from my NBC Sports colleagues, Summer Sanders and Rowdy Gaines. They were Olympians, swimmers who earned fame through winning gold. They have been role models for generations of future swimmers. So I was fascinated to see their reaction to the scenes around Phelps’ return, a mix of admiration and astonishment at the “scene.” Gaines was quick to point out the value of this attention for the sport. How about jealousy? Gaines referenced hearing a few such thoughts from a small number of swimmers.

Did we see a small example in the 100 freestyle? After holding off Phelps in the final meters, Brent Hayden pumped his fist in a “celebration” that Gaines likened to a hitter gesturing after a spring training home run. Out of place and perhaps out of character, Hayden’s response may well be one that Phelps remembers.

Ryan Lochte, the six-time Olympic medalist, who edged Phelps in the 100 backstroke, and then acted as if he had actually won a race before, provided contrast.

The word on Phelps’ performance was he admitted to a “hangover” from his 400 free Saturday night. He went out fast, hoping to swim the distance race as a sprint. It appeared a mistake, as he faltered in the stretch. He won the race, but rarely, if ever, have we witnessed other swimmers closing in on Phelps in the last meters.

Phelps said he had never been so tired following a race. His cool down was unsuccessful. And there was a lasting effect in his Sunday efforts. Although he finished second in both the 100 freestyle and 100 backstroke, Phelps has set his bar so high that anything other than record-breaking performances cries for explanation.

He offered a few reasons such as being away from home for six weeks, three weeks of altitude training, new races and regimens after his “hiatus.” All legitimate, and they afford Phelps a pass on this weekend. But all eyes will be on July’s U.S. Nationals in Indianapolis and then on the World Championships in Rome to see if Phelps is still indomitable.

Maybe I’m affected by watching Roger Federer’s recent travails, but athletes wait for the first glimmer of vulnerability in the great ones. When that opening appears, the hungry pounce. And thus will the next three years unfold for Phelps. Hayden showed what it means to beat Phelps in any race at any time. If there are more Hayden moments in July, and Phelps loses any fraction of the invincibility he has carried to the start blocks over six years, then the swimming world changes.

Gaines is a wise soul, and he cautioned not to make too much of the Santa Clara results. That seems the smart play. But my taste of Phelps-mania leaves the firm belief that swimming wins with more Phelps, three more years to be exact, through the London Olympics in 2012. As a swim official remarked this weekend, “Tiger Woods is the Phelps of golf.”

Tide turning to young arms

2009-06-12T20:39:00Z

This week Freddy Garcia signed with White Sox, and Orlando “El Duque” Hernandez signed with Texas. Both are low-risk minor-league deals. But both struck me in contrast to a visit to the Oakland Coliseum yesterday.

Minnesota was in town and we all know the Twins have thrived with a “home-grown” starting rotation (Francisco Liriano was acquired via trade, but was in Double-A at the time and was developed as a Twin). Oakland has emulated that mode by remaking its rotation around Brett Anderson, Trevor Cahill, Vin Mazzaro, and Josh Outman, all of whom spent 2008 in the minors. Add Dallas Braden, a 25-year-old A’s draftee, and Oakland has a young rotation all of its own making.

With player costs escalating and the economy crashing, are we seeing veteran pitchers as fallout? Doesn’t it seem that teams no longer automatically give eighth and ninth chances to aging arms hopeful of squeezing from their career every day and dollar? Doesn’t it appear that teams will go young, at the risk of rushing talent, rather than old?

Does that explain why Pedro Martinez is still unsigned? Word is that Martinez doesn’t do cheap. He is not interested in a low-base, high-incentive deal. So teams, who know that Martinez has a limited number of pitches left in his tattered shoulder (perhaps fewer than he is willing to admit), are either unwilling to pay or will wait until an August moment of utter desperation. Reports have it that the Rays and Cubs recently watched Martinez throw in the Dominican Republic so maybe teams are playing a waiting game just like Martinez.

Tom Glavine claims his stunning release was purely motivated by Atlanta’s desire to save money (BTW, this is the second ugly divorce for Glavine from the Braves and it’s hard to ever imagine a reconciliation).

Jon Lieber (said to be retired), Esteban Loaiza, Steve Trachsel (went to spring with San Diego), and Paul Byrd are unsigned. No one tried very hard to coax one more year out of Kenny Rogers. And there seems to be scant interest in the 32-year-old oft-injured Mark Mulder.

Perhaps Garcia and El Duque will start a trend of one more chance to the down and out veteran pitchers. I surmise someone gives Martinez a chance in the summer heat of a pennant race, but I think the tide is turning dramatically towards the young arms.

FIVE SWINGS:

1. Heath Bell is 18-19 in save chances. Ryan Franklin is 13-14. Brad Lidge has six blown saves, and has landed on the DL. And you wonder why the stat analysts populating front offices diminish the value of closers?

2. Talked to Twins staff and they believe Toronto’s early-season play was the best they have seen in the AL. But Ron Gardenhire issued a caveat that Texas knows well, “we haven’t seen a healthy Angels team.”

3. What money will do…checked the AL stats after over two weeks in Paris. Standing 1-2 in OPS are the Yankees and Boston. Impressive is Tampa’s league-leading run total while equally unimpressive is Seattle’s woeful last-place total of less than four runs per game.

4. In the Manny-free zone, the Dodgers are second to Philadelphia in NL runs per game. Given their ballpark, and the extended absence of their top hitter, it is one of the astounding achievements that have fueled a dazzling first half.

5. Sixty games in to the schedule and does anyone hear praise for Cito Gaston in Toronto, Bruce Bochy in San Francisco or Dusty Baker in Cincinnati? All three managers have their teams in contention. None were expected. Ron Washington would have been in this group, but his contract extension was picked up by the Rangers in recognition of their division-leading status.

McEnroe-Borg greatest rivalry

2009-06-10T20:02:00Z

Is Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal the equal of or superior to the great John McEnroe-Bjorn Borg rivalry?

At present, I answer no, although Federer and Nadal still have time to surpass the now three-decade old battles between the brash New Yorker and stoic Swede.

How much time is very much a question for Nadal after news that he is struggling to overcome tendinitis in both knees. Nadal will travel to London next week, and he hopes the treatment he has been receiving gets him fit enough to play. Nadal says if he is not at 100 percent, he won’t play Wimbledon. Even if he does play, there are questions over his long-term health.

McEnroe and Borg had the personality difference, an external reality, as the two have long been friends. But it played wonderfully in an era when tennis had a high profile. Network television was common; tennis series (paid exhibitions) were created, and general sports fans could name 8-10 players. The sport was incredibly healthy in the United States, but had yet to experience a global explosion.

There were other great players in that era. Jimmy Connors was still a force after his five-year run at No. 1 (1974-78), and would regain the top spot for periods in 1979 and 1982. Ivan Lendl arrived as a future star, Guillermo Vilas was still a force on clay, and Vitas Gerulaitis was at his peak. But Connors was the wild card, the man who could rival McEnroe and Borg in results, and surpassed the Swede in inciting passion. He was the third party who became fierce rivals with McEnroe, meetings in which there often wasn’t a good guy.

Like McEnroe and Borg, Federer and Nadal have a rivalry of respect. It’s clear they like each other. And like McEnroe and Borg, they have played a classic Wimbledon final. The two best matches in tennis history are regarded to be the Wimbledon finals between these sets of rivals. That’s not coincidence as the sport’s greatest stage creates the lasting memories, just as Augusta produces golf’s best moments.

Federer and Nadal have more variety than McEnroe and Borg, contesting their finals over three surfaces and three different Grand Slam events. They play in a more international sport. Who could have ever imagined tremendous players from Mallorca, Scotland, Serbia, Cyprus, and Thailand as well as an utter explosion from Russia (more with the women) and Eastern Europe? That works well in some ways, making players unimagined money traveling the entire globe for events and exhibitions that produce huge paydays, but not in others as tennis in the U.S. has been marginalized denying the Federer-Nadal rivalry the same stage that McEnroe and Borg enjoyed.

And then there is the biggest difference. McEnroe and Borg had the U.S., peaking with their U.S. Open showdowns. Federer and Nadal have yet to play at the U.S. Open, and only twice have they met in tournaments in the United States.

The Federer-Nadal rivalry has the chance to win the longevity battle as Borg’s abrupt retirement in 1981 denied McEnroe more battles with the Swede. But what Federer and Nadal don’t yet have is the platform to fully show their brilliance to the world. Yes, people heard about their Wimbledon final last year, and stumbled into the match at various times. But it still didn’t have the buzz of the much-anticipated 1980 and 1981 Wimbledon finals.

Federer-Nadal doesn’t have America. You want proof? This week Federer makes his first SOLO appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Does the next non-American tennis star need to win 14 majors to earn one cover? Until tennis hurdles the bridge to a broader American audience, McEnroe and Borg is an unchallenged rivalry.

Federer walking on air

2009-06-08T19:06:00Z

Roger Federer found his Holy Grail. Through the heavy drizzle and swirling winds of a strange late spring afternoon in Paris, Federer never blinked. Not even when an idiot intruded on the proceedings, approaching Federer on court, and summoning all too many memories of Hamburg 16 years ago.

Actually, there may have one moment when Federer showed nerves, when he bricked a 30-30 forehand volley put-away in the final game.

But that was a minor blip on a masterful day. Robin Soderling played the role of first-time Grand Slam event finalist as many have perfected. He was nervous, and never displayed the level that dominated Rafael Nadal seven days earlier.

And Federer was completely in charge, dominant on serve, and without slip on his newly erratic forehand. For most of this day, he was vintage Federer. And there was no view of the Federer who had been humbled on this court one year ago by Nadal in an inglorious French Open final.

That made the day so special. Who could have imagined Federer winning this after his humiliation in last year’s final? Or during the matches in this event- against Jose Acasuso, Tommy Haas, and Juan del Potro when he appeared incapable of coming from behind?

That made this major so special. It was a different Federer, surviving rather than dominating. He looked human, and forever I will believe the crowds embraced that glimpse of humanity.

In my many years broadcasting sports, I cannot recall another event when so many pulled for one man or team to the exclusion of an opponent. To be clear, there wasn’t an anti-Soderling sense in the house. Simply, this was all about people so wanting Federer to overcome this last hurdle.

How badly did Federer want this? His eyes welled during the final game, and the tears flowed freely as the Swiss anthem was played during the trophy presentation.

Can you blame him? He is a rare young man who had everything, wonderful family, devoted wife, imminent fatherhood, impeccable demeanor, and unmatched excellence in his sport, except at Roland Garros. What seemed unlikely to happen a year ago became reality Sunday afternoon.

He won with royalty watching: Bjorn Borg, Andre Agassi, John McEnroe, and Mats Wilander were all in the house. I believe somewhere in Mallorca, Rafael Nadal caught a glimpse of the day that had been his for four years, and felt good for Federer.

Federer no lock in French final

2009-06-05T21:18:00Z

The French Open has been filled with high drama, and the final act, Sunday’s men’s singles final, could be the culmination of great tennis theater. Roger Federer seeks to complete a career Grand Slam, and in doing so match Pete Sampras’ record for most majors won (14). Robin Soderling, the No. 23 seed and not even on the radar when this major began, seeks to cap his improbable Roland Garros run with a title.

Federer has never played in a major like this, contesting every game rather than dominating. Rather than hovering above the field, allowing no mortal to challenge, he has been engaged in fierce battles, four times playing from behind to overcome opponents, the best of these efforts coming against Juan Martin del Potro 3-6, 7-6 (2), 2-6, 6-1, 6-4 in the semifinals.

The Swiss’ track record this fortnight in Paris makes a prediction for the final difficult. Federer has reached a fourth straight Roland Garros title match, having lost the last three to Rafael Nadal. But it is not Nadal who is awaiting him this time around, but rather Soderling, who is on a career-best run. Federer is hardly performing at his best, yet he plays on Sunday in his 15th final in the last 16 Grand Slam events. Incredibly, he’s also made it to 20 straight semifinals at the majors. We will never again see the likes of such excellence.

Federer’s return game is still a notch below what it was in the past. It’s well above average without a doubt, but too often opponents are coasting through sets without a push from Federer. And that could be a problem on Sunday. No doubt that Federer handles the moment, his two comeback five-set wins show that he can handle the pressure that grew out of Nadal’s early exit. But he will face a man playing superior tennis, the best tennis of his career.

Against Fernando Gonzalez in the semifinals, for two sets Soderling continued the brilliance that got him past Nadal and Nikolay Davydenko. Soderling was playing power clay-court tennis, handling high balls with astounding strength, and hammering wide flat serves to great effect. In essence, Soderling, on the red clay, has forced his opponents out of their game.

Just when Soderling appeared poised to knock out Gonzalez, the Chilean found his serve, and stayed on court long enough to allow Soderling’s level to slip. It was the first sign of weakness shown by the Swede in his last four matches, and the dip allowed Gonzalez to reach the fifth set with a 4-1 lead.

And then from somewhere Soderling found one more push. Inspired by the front-row presence of fellow Swede Bjorn Borg, Soderling played well enough to cut his deficit to 4-2. He pumped a fist at Borg, and proceeded to regain the physical edge. Four more games and Soderling was in his first Grand Slam event final.

SUNDAY’S KEYS:

FATIGUE: Does Soderling have the conditioning to rebound from his long battles with Nadal and Gonzalez as well as David Ferrer in the third round? Federer has also played long matches, but his fitness is unquestioned, and he is accustomed to the two-week grind of a major. Until this fortnight, Soderling had not gotten past the third round of a major.

STAGE FRIGHT: Watch Soderling’s feet in the first set. Nerves often are exposed by footwork. Soderling has moved beautifully at Roland Garros. If he continues to show that in the first set on Sunday, he will have conquered his nerves.

POWER: Can Federer withstand Soderling’s punishing attack? Fair question, it seems, since Nadal used a similar game to take Federer out three years running.

DESTINY: The French Open is the only major Federer has never won. Is the Swiss Master ready for his best chance to win Roland Garros, and earn recognition as the greatest player of all-time?

Is Soderling, who has come out of nowhere in Paris, destined to complete one of the greatest runs ever at a major, beating both Nadal and Federer to win the title?

Sunday will provide the answer, and either way a great story will have been written on the dirt at Roland Garros, one that will go down in French Open lore.

Federer’s DiMaggio-like streaks

2009-06-04T20:57:00Z

Roger Federer’s streaks of reaching 20 consecutive semifinals in Grand Slam events, and the finals of 14 of the last 15 majors, are the tennis equivalent of Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hit streak.

They are a test of both endurance and excellence. We will not live to see another player approach these marks, just as DiMaggio’s streak has had no threat for nearly seven decades.

A great player will have to excel simply to play 20 straight majors let alone avoid upset. Today’s tennis demands so much from the body before the mind can be asked to answer that challenge.

And here are the reasons Federer has amassed sports’ most underappreciated streak:

BODY: He has stayed healthy, 38 straight majors contested and counting, with a game that limits demands while maximizing output. First thing Federer told me that he did after finishing the hard court season was to work on his fitness. Renowned for conditioning, Federer has used this edge to avoid not just serious injury but the nagging hurts (read: Nadal’s knee) that limit others.

MIND: We referenced recently the line between self-confidence and denial. Federer has walked it masterfully at this French Open, renouncing the perilous danger he faced against Jose Acasuso and Tommy Haas while dominating his biggest threat in Gael Monfils. No doubt, the great one has shown vulnerability. And the players sense the slightly wounded warrior. But ready to pounce, they are rebuffed by the self-confident Federer who refuses to accept his mortality.

Never was the difference in a mind more evident than in Wednesday’s quarterfinal when Federer exhibited the mind of a champion, while the wildly talented Monfils was still afflicted with the lapses that a top-10 pro should have long ago overcome.

SUPPORT: Federer is clearly strengthened by his long relationship with Mirka Vavrinec. Their recent marriage is simply a legality given the immense co-dependence so rare in their generation. Federer schedules wisely, understanding he plays to the weekend in most tournaments. Thus, he has avoided the “overplaying” to which Nadal has fallen prey.

Bottom line is this is a man “written off” in the sports psyche. Yet, he has reached the last four finals at Grand Slam events, and as mentioned, 14 of the last 15. He is a heavy favorite Friday to extend that run. There has been one nemesis, Rafael Nadal, but the Spainard has not approached either of Federer’s DiMaggio-like streaks.

Like DiMaggio, Federer is a graceful champion, one loathe to displaying emotion, proud perhaps to a fault. Federer does not breed a dislike for publicity as did DiMaggio, neither though does Federer seek the limelight. Simply, he shows up, respects the game, his opponents, fans, sponsors, volunteers and even the press. And then he wins. Yet it took a massive upset of his archrival to once again allow Federer to receive the credit he has truly earned.

Twenty straight Grand Slam event semifinals, and counting. Federer’s Joltin’ Joe in the 21st century.

Soderling’s tactics paid off

2009-06-01T16:35:00Z

It struck me when the chair announced “6-1 Soderling” in the fourth-set tiebreak. Rafael Nadal was going down at the French Open. Not to Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic or a veteran dirtballer, but to Robin Soderling, a Swede whose only career achievements of note have been indoors.

Nadal losing on clay to an indoor specialist?

But Soderling employed the tactics many have implored Federer to use against Nadal. Soderling simply went all out on every shot of every point. He whaled forehands boldly, striking lines regularly. He blasted first serves over 130 mph, and we laughed in amazement at the boldness that allowed Soderling to hit 122-123 mph SECOND serves.

Simply put: No one is going to beat Nadal from the baseline at Roland Garros, and Soderling knew he had to put new meaning into playing with aggression. His heavy serve produced an astounding number of short returns from Nadal. I have never seen Nadal lose more three-stroke points, as Soderling repeatedly blasted winners off Nadal’s weak replies.

Finally, Soderling never blinked in the big moments. He crushed serves, absolute bombs, in the final set and for the first time, in the words of John McEnroe, Nadal “looked like a middleweight fighting a heavyweight.”

Where does it rank as an upset? McEnroe compared this to Michael Chang’s unforgettable upset of Ivan Lendl in the 1989 French Open in the Round of 16. Or Peter Doohan taking out two-time Wimbledon champion Boris Becker in 1987. I tried Federer over Pete Sampras in the 2001 Wimbledon, the end of Sampras’ reign on grass. Admittedly, that’s a reach as Nadal is hardly finished on clay.

Simply, we didn’t see this one coming, not two days after Nadal dismantled Lleyton Hewitt, not from a Swede with no clay credentials, not at this Roland Garros, where Nadal seemed healthy and strong.

Now what? No doubt Federer just picked up a ton of expectation. He couldn’t take down Nadal in four tries in Paris, and now someone else has done the work. And in three and half hours, Federer went from one of the chasers to the prohibitive favorite.

I am not sure Federer is ready for that role. His last two matches have been a struggle and in no way is he playing as smoothly as he has in the last three years here.

But this shocking upset created for Federer a chasm into which he can make history. Win here and he has an irrefutable case for being the greatest player of all time. Win here and he will most certainly add one more major after this to break Pete Sampras’ record for most Grand Slam titles (14). Win here and he is still relevant in the discussion for the World No. 1 ranking.

One offshoot of this upset is how great does Federer’s run of making 19 straight Grand Slam semifinals look after Nadal’s loss? And how about making 14 of the last 15 Grand Slam finals -- all from a guy too quickly written off in the last year?

Federer has a tough road to navigate just to reach next Sunday’s final. He’s used to the spotlight, but a whole new pressure just landed on his shoulders.

Men’s game high in quality of play

2009-05-30T16:08:00Z

Observations and reflections from the French Open:

1. Watch Andy Murray, Juan Martin Del Potro, Fernando Verdasco, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Gael Monfils along with viable veterans Andy Roddick, Nikolay Davydenko, and Fernando Gonzalez and you realize the men’s game is at an all-time peak in terms of quality of play. The physical demands of success are unprecedented, more reason to appreciate what we see from Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.

2. Pink shirt aside, Rafael Nadal continues as the most stylish man to grace the red clay of Roland Garros. It was awe-inspiring as well as somewhat depressing to watch his thorough beating of Lleyton Hewitt on Friday. Hewitt was like many men over the last five years, coming to the court with the hope of employing tactics that might unveil some weakness in Nadal. But the great Nadal is a fabulous starter, and within a handful of games, he had communicated to all that Hewitt had no chance.

3. I talked to Roger Federer after his Thursday match, and he projects an air of relative unconcern over any dip in his play. Federer’s grace, politeness, and decency should not obscure a robust self-confidence. The only damage to Federer is if he confuses self-confidence with denial. Federer devoted his time post-Miami (meltdown) to fitness and conditioning, and declares his efforts a rousing success. Winning Madrid was a slight confidence boost, only exceeded by his draw (quite unassuming).

4. The French Tennis Federation schedules matches with more home bias than the other home country federations do at the other majors. Some of the players afforded main show court playing time borders on the absurd. Meanwhile, former World No. 1 and French Open champion Juan Carlos Ferrero played Friday on an outer court than is nearly in Switzerland. The result: far too many empty seats on the show courts (the U.S. Open suffers the same problem in the daytime).

5. Justine Henin appeared at a sponsor event Thursday, and declared no interest in a comeback. The words only heightened the problems in the women’s game as without a Williams sister in the mix, the results are not relevant.

6. Maria Sharapova’s first week in Paris was huge for the WTA. Short on match play after missing nine months with a shoulder injury, Sharapova has lost none of her champion’s fight. She commands both attention and respect, qualities in shorter supply these days on the WTA tour.

7. Should anyone be surprised by Venus Williams’ third-round exit? In 13 French Opens, she has advanced past the quarterfinals just once, in 2002, when she lost to younger sister Serena in the final.

8. Has anyone asked if the Williams sisters are thinking of a doubles calendar Grand Slam? They entered the doubles in Paris, and just two hours after her singles loss, Venus rebounded to team with Serena for a second-round win over a team anchored by Agnes Szavay, who had ousted Venus. How random is that?

9. Where have they gone? I saw Sebastien Grosjean here. He had shoulder surgery, has spent nine months rehabbing, and is trying one more run. He played doubles here with Nicolas Lapentti, and has accepted wild cards to Queen’s and Wimbledon. One regret is I didn’t have the chance to ask him about the famous 2001 match with Andre Agassi and Bill Clinton (wouldn’t’ we all love to know the truth).

10. Another reason I like Andy Roddick is his tweet after learning that his second-round match was scheduled on a tiny outer court. “I haven’t done anything in this tournament to earn courtesies like a bigger court.” Realistic, sensible reactions are not common in tennis.