Better Late Than Never

Sorry I missed out on the Roland Garros finals. I've been away from home so much that I haven't gotten to post, and I'll admit to missing both finals, but here's a couple thoughts.
First of all, the men's final. I thought this could be a very competitive match, but Rafael Nadal's 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 win looks pretty comprehensive. I have to admit, I didn't expect Robin Soderling to defend his points from last year, but good for him for getting another big win, and even more credit to him for following it up, like he did last year. I'm curious to see, now, if he can bet Nadal in Paris, and if he can beat Federer in Paris, is there a chance he can beat them both and maybe win the title sometime? It certainly seems like it should be possible. Hopefully, Soderling can also start replicating his results on the faster surfaces. He's got the game to be way better than he is on hard courts and grass.
For Nadal, well, there's all kinds of positives for him coming out of this match. Perhaps first of all, he delivered a beating to a player he clearly feels some animosity against. (The feelings seem to be mutual.) He comes out of Paris with the No. 1 ranking, something I didn't think was possible at the start of the event. And he has nothing to defend at Wimbledon. In the best-case scenario for Nadal, he could come out of Wimbledon over 4,000 points ahead of Federer. (He's 295 points in front as of today.) And Federer's got a lot more to defend the rest of this year. Short story even shorter, if Nadal wins Wimbledon, he's going to be very tough to catch this year. The two biggest men's tournaments left after Wimbledon are the U.S. Open and the World Tour Finals. Nadal was a semifinalist at the U.S. Open, and he was abysmal at the WTF. Add that to Wimbledon, and he has all kinds of chances to stretch his lead.
And he should be bursting with confidence. After going so long, almost a year, without a title of any kind, Nadal suddenly reeled off four in a row. His clay-court season can only help him going into the rest of this year.
The women's tournament was wild from the start, so why not save the biggest surprise for the very end? No doubt, Francesca Schiavone is a talented player. Indisputably, her best surface is clay. However, there's no way I would have had her winning her first Grand Slam singles title shortly before her 30th birthday in Paris. That being said, good for her. When she first came on the scene, Schiavone was considered a very good talent, but I never felt she really lived up to that. Two weeks ago in Paris, she did.
So what's the difference between playing to win and playing not to lose? Probably what happened in the women's final. Samantha Stosur got through a murderer's row of players – Justine Henin in the Round of 16, Serena Williams in the quarterfinals and Jelena Jankovic in the semis. She was given a less-than-elite opponent in the finals, and she stumbled at that last hurdle. Schiavone is a very passionate player, and in the second-set tiebreaker, from 2-2, it sounds like Schiavone is the one who went for her shots. The final result: 6-4, 7-6 (2). No doubt, Stosur should be disappointed she didn't win this one, but hopefully it doesn't devastate her. She's looking good in her pre-event warm-up in Eastbourne, but I think we'll get a better idea of how she's handling this disappointment at Wimbledon.