Ross, thank you!

Sorry to jump back in subject (and OT), but is it true Esther Williams has died? I can't find it on the news--it's her birthday today. My daughter loves her almost as much as she loves Michael Berrer (sigh, now ranked 130-somethingth, lost in three in Toronto). Hello, everyone; it's been a long time.

Steve: watching the Gasquet-Murray match. Commentators have just discussed how Murray will play to his opponent's injury. "If you're bleeding, he'll make you bleed more." Honor?

Does anyone have a link to the two post-match interviews? Transcripts would be best for those of us (sigh) stuck in Dial-Up.

Susan-Brilliant! And so challenging. Shoes: Federer is Manolo Blahnik; Nadal is Nike. Furniture: Federer is Chippendale; Nadal is Mission Music: Federer is Classical; Nadal is Jazz Tree: Federer is Dogwood; Nadal is Paper Mulberry (Kate is from Virginia!) I'm stumped on fruit, veg or flower.

Slice: "Admittedly, I sometimes have a bias, depending on my mood, how the draw has shaken out, the surface, the attire, the odds-on favorite, etc." Okay, resisting the instinct to shriek "Attire?," what I'm getting here is that it is often very much gut for you. "I might pull for Rafa to overcome in a tight Wimbledon five-setter that he is expected to lose, then pull for Roger to win in five at the French." And a bit of leaning toward whomever is the underdog? Thank you--you are evidence that it is possible to be a fan of both.

I miss the analogies.

Slice-N-Dice: This was a debate earlier on. What happens when you "really have a difficult time rooting for either player at the expense of the other?" Do you bounce back and forth, hoping one will win and then the next? Or do you root for whoever is losing? For the better player on the day? How do you work it please?

Annie--But isn't Federer more Romantic (lyrical) and Nadal more Baroque (intricate)? (I said Bach originally. Mozart applies to him as well.) Desperately seeking a jazz analogy. Which one is Gershwin?

Maria, I think you express beautifully.

Love the Cheetah/Panther analogy. And the chess one. I can't speak to the wrestling reference, but admit I am intrigued to know there is someone who is an aficionado of both. Maria, when I signed on, everyone so nicely welcomed me. So welcome to you!

Susan, I forgot to thank you for the last analogy: Fed the sea, Nadal the tsunami. It's been great fun playing with everyone.

Thank you, Susan. I never would have gotten that one.

Another (naive) question: What is a KAD?

Hi, Susan-- Surely it's possible to be a fan of both. They are so very different as players. But it must be very hard to not cheer for one or the other when they are battling it out in a match. Probably the thing most fans are thinking is "Please, please, don't let this ever end."

Mirka as Yoko! Ouch! David!

Okay, I have a confession. The only thing I knew about tennis was that Chris Evert and Jimmy Connors were engaged and they won some tournament at the same time. I had heard of Billie Jean King. I had NEVER heard of Pete Sampras. No kidding. Off the radar. And until I began to watch Nadal play, I had NEVER heard of Federer. (Don't hurt me. I once met Joe Theisman and had no idea who he was, and I lived outside D.C. I just wasn't a big sports person.) So my question here, observing the fire and angst of the Fedal War and the bitterness that sometime rages, is this normal? Are there other rivalries in tennis that arouse such empassioned souls? Or is it a unique part (not my favorite part) of The Rivalry?

ava--We met in a bookstore; he reads every minute he can. I never use a dictionary; I just ask him for definitions (I think I've had to resort to dictionaries three times in the marriage). He uses words like epiphenominal and muliebrity like I say hot and cold, and he can often pull out these little-known facts --for example, I had no idea he could spout Ruth/Gehrig stats without research. Of course, his puns are so darn esoteric that no one ever laughs. (Except him. And me, because I love him so.) Back to business: I like that you reverse the Brando/Olivier to fit each player. Excellent observation. This teaches me much about the two men. They each have elements of rebel and classicist, despite the (popular) tendency type one as one sort and the other as another.

Jeu Nadal--Then I like the Seabiscuit analogy, with apologies for miscomprehending. I might have thought Lennon (Revolution) was more Nadal and McCartney (Here, There And Everywhere) is more Fed. Either way, put them together, and you get it all, from Love Me Do through all of Sgt. Pepper. Extending the Lennon/McCartney analogy, the one thing that really stands out is these are men who work best together and off each other. Their brilliance multiplies when they are in tandem. (Talk about chemistry. Theirs stretches across a net.)

ava--but you get many points for spelling Castlereagh properly, and I didn't. Back to husband for consultation: "Because Nadal, like Tallyrand, always finds a way to win. And Fed, like Castlereagh, comes from a more established empire. His accomplishments were more conservative, though equally consistant and effective. They both accomplished great things." I'm more comfy with actors: Federer is Olivier and Nadal is Brando. (If we ignore the whole Clash of the Titans and Superman embarrassments.)

But which one is Lennon and which one is McCartney?

I had missed the Ali-Frazier analogy as well (good one). This is as fun as casting the Scooby Doo or Looney Tunes Hamlet (it can be done. Elmer Fudd as Polonius. Foghorn Leghorn as The Ghost. Porky Pig as Horatio...) Yes. This is what my nutty family does on road trips. And now we can add the Fed/Nadal analogy. So Fed is Ruth and Nadal is Gehrig? In 1927, Ruth batted .356 and had 60 HR, while Gehrig had .373 and had 48 HR. If you consider HR=Slams and batting ave=Master Shields, it works pretty well. (And before you think I actually know what I'm talking about, I came up with Ruth/Gehrig, but my husband gave me all the rest.) He also says Nadal is Tallyrand and Federer is Castlereigh, which shows you why I spend half my time reading up so I can converse with this man.

"Federed is War Admiral and Nadal is Seabiscuit." Good, but not quite perfect, because Nadal could still manage a Triple Crown (career slam, like Federer), and Seabiscuit never did. (Not that Seabiscuit played tennis--sorry if the metaphor is getting confused). How about Fed is Astaire and Nadal is Kelly? Fed is Beethoven and Nadal is Bach?

"It made me think of the old question about whether he has an “ugly” game or not." I've never seen Nadal's game as ugly. In particular his flying, elegant steps as he moves across court, culminating in slides--they are balletic to my eye. No one's feet move like that, in steps so fast, in slides so swift. And then there's that whiplash follow-through of the inside out backhand. The first time I saw the guy, I thought, whoever he is, he's been choreographed by Agnes De Mille. (If I were going for ballet equivalents, btw, I'd say Federer is Nureyev and Nadal is Baryshnikov.)

Back after the Nadal-Gulby set (I kept typing that Gluby as I send the plays and the scores to my daughter, who works at a bank with no access to the world). Susan, absolutely, I agree, Verdasco is/should be/is entitled to be worn to a pulp. As the commentator said, "He's giving blood out there." That's why I was so impressed that he just kept churning out the points and chasing down that ball. Impressed with Nadal today, too, of course. Wondering (bet I'm not the first) if Gulby's amazing, unflagging strength (all that time against Nadal and never staggering once?) comes from that hair? Will we see everyone shaggy and long-locked for Roland Garros?