Did anyone else get the impression that Rafa and Nole let their negativity concerning the blue clay affect their play? Being a huge Roger fan, as soon as I read of the massive amount of complaining coming from both of them before the tournament even started, I thought that they both might not only lose, but lose early. This proved to be true. I simply can't believe that the surface plays so dramatically different that players of their calibur couldn't come up with better performances. The sour grapes is what did it. Bravo, Roger. You just played the best that you could and didn't let a new innovation throw you off. One step closer to Number 1.

--Catching the red eye for London tonight. Gotta meet with Roger over breakfast in the morning and give him some tips. Also, I'm gonna find Rafa's gatorade bottles and slip various 'mickeys' into them so he doesn't ruin yet another tournament for me and TMF. Go Roger!!!!!

I'm going to cheer my heart out for Fed tomorrow! He seems to be in stellar form. Here's what worries me: As a superduper Federer fan, this situation seems like deja-vu to me. There are so many cases of Roger playing exceptional tennis leading up to the finals and going up against a seemingly battered Rafa who 'barely made it there'. Suddenly, Roger can't find his first serve, can't handle volleys, and has to hit three winners to win a single point against an incredibly fresh-looking Rafa. Inevitably, he gets broken relatively easily as a result of Rafa running down impossible shots and, if he himself ever sees a double or triple break point while returning, Rafa magically 'dials it in' and saves every one. Suddenly, Rafa's up a set and a break and we Fed fans are all throwing things at the television. I've had to buy a new TV after all those damned '05-08 clay court Masters, Wimbledon '08, Aussie Open '09 and Madrid '10. This unfortunate trend gets expensive! That being said, I'm really looking forward to viewing a fresh start in the morning. Go Fed! Remember: I work on Monday and don't have the time to go to the WalMart electronics section!

Funny post, Pete. Too bad for Francesca, I really like her. Venus will have her hands full with Kim in the Semis. Hope you enjoyed the chicken wings.

It's not going to be good enough for a great many people in the U.S., but for some of us, not having a wealth of American contenders is not a concern. I am drawn to the drama of the tour and the array of different endearing characters, no matter what their nationality. It has always confused me when people bring national pride into tour events. In Davis Cup that is sort of the whole point, but tour events? Why should national pride have anything to do with anything? These are all individuals competing, not part of any team. I will always root for and be drawn to the people whom I like the most, or who I feel are the most deserving. I loved Sampras, Courier, Agassi, and Martin, and it had nothing to do with the fact that they are American. I hate Roddick and it also has nothing to do with the fact that he is American. Querrey? He has shown me in past years that he is talented, competitive, modest, and likable. I would like to see him have even more of a break-through at some point, even if he were from North Korea.

Oh poppycock! Boonswagel! (Is that how you spell Boonswagel? Where the heck does that word come from, anyway?) I am quite a ravenous tennis fan, and noticed Franny long ago. I would say I became endeared to her in Davis Cup and was smitten with her performance at the French (heck, who wasn't, except for Stosur). However, that is neither here nor there. My dislike of Venus and Serena has nothing to do with their success. I don't dislike any player simply because of their success. I think, first of all, that they are both very strange, perhaps borderline crazy. They have glazed-over looks on their faces when interviewed that is very odd and very hard to describe. I think it is in poor taste when they thank 'Jehovah' in speeches after big wins. Serena in particular seems to be very insincere and only grudgingly gives her opponents credit when they beat her. I also dislike the constant coverage of their matches in place of other matches that are far more interesting, just because they're the American Williams sisters! This 'biased media', as you call it, seems to be biased in their favor, so I'm not sure why you think I'm influenced by them. Oh well, there's more I could say, but I have to save my energy to go on and talentlessly hate another day! Hate, hate, hate!

Beating a dead horse, probably, but is anyone else thoroughly sick and tired of how Grand Slams are covered? The Soderling match is not covered anywhere except online. Even the 'mix' channel that they tout on Directv says that all the matches are complete. Bah! First of all, most real tennis fans want to watch more than just the Americans. Second, quit scheduling 4 hours of programming to cover a men's best-of-five and women's best-of-three match. Third, give us some kind of damn option to watch matches like Sod/Montanes that might not be so appealing to the masses. Okay, I'm finished ranting.....anyone else want to rant? Feels pretty good.

Do we have a super Roger fan versus a super Rafa fan here? I must admit, I am wearing my RF hat right now. I sure admire the hell out of the guy. I also admire the hell out of Rafa. It's tough for big fans of players to remain objective about their guys. Rafa has made amazing strides on surfaces other than clay in past years and his talent and unmatched determination have always made him some kind of force to be reckoned with on any surface. However, at this stage in both of their careers, it would be difficult to argue that Rafa comes even close to Roger in all-court prowess when using the best yardstick available: the Grand Slams. Roger's results: 4 Aussies (plus one final), 1 Frenchie (plus 3 finals), 6 Wimbies (plus 1 final), 5 US Opens (plus one final). Astounding! Rafa: 1 Aussie, 5 Frenchies, 2 Wimbies (plus 2 finals), 0 US Opens (no finals). There is not yet any real comparison. It is entirely possible that Nadal will grab a USO or two before his career is over, but, as Toni Nadal thinks, it is unlikely that Nadal will reach Fed's all-court career status. And Fed aint done yet.

Fed's head to head against nearly anyone is skewed in his favor. Soderling and Djokovic happen to be in fine form right now, and I am simply saying that it is a far more difficult path (including Melzer, whom Fed plays tonight) than Rafa has. Rafa is a marvel, but if he doesn't reach the final this time, it will most assuredly lend credence to the statement that he is not the complete all-surfaces player that Roger is. Side note: I would actually love to see Stan Wawrinka make the semifinal and play Rafa. 'Stan the Man' has a beautiful game and is an endearing character.

Schiavone is very endearing in a way that Venus (and Serena) will never be. I will cheer for Francesca whole-heartedly tomorrow. Venus and Serena are without a doubt certifiably talented, and without a doubt certifiably crazy. You can substitute Oracene into that last sentence as well, sans the 'talented' part. I hope the Italian Stallion takes it to Venus, Jehovah willing, of course.

I don't think Rafa could have asked for a better draw from this point on to the final. Who would be the most dangerous opponent left? Lopez then Verdasco/Ferrer couldn't possibly pose a serious threat, could they? Perhaps a heavy-hitting Querry with the crowd energizing him? It is interesting that many people were complaining about Roger having the easiest draw at the beginning of the tournament. Of all the top players remaining, it would be an easy argument that Roger has the most difficult quarter left (Soderling). Shocking fourth round matchup: Youzhny v. Robredo, two guys I really like, but never would have expected to be facing each other at this stage.

We all know how drastically things can change in tennis, but if I were forced to make a guess, I would say that Andy Murray will never win a Slam. Because of his game? No, although his counterpunching style is many times ineffective (and ugly to watch). Rather, it is because of his mental state. How many times have we seen him crumble during middle or early round Grand Slam matches against talented but much lower-ranked opponents? Wawrinka, Berdych, Cilic, Verdasco, and Tsonga are a few names just off the top of my head. His demeanor during the difficult times of every one of these matches was not one of a calm, mature professional taking responsibility and finding a way to battle through adversity. It was instead one of a bratty child who didn't like that things weren't going his way. He would constantly lash out, rant crazily to the air or to his box, grab accusatorily at his hands, wrists, racket, legs, socks, shoes, shoelaces, shorts, short pockets, or whatever else he could think of. I don't know why more people don't comment on it, but to me it is obviously a childish way of saying, "It's not me, it's this stupid thing! It's messing me up!" Wouldn't it be a total oddity if you were to see Fed start ranting to his box twenty times a match or frustratingly fidgeting with his socks after a bad point? Or Rafa? Or Delpo? Of course it would. These guys, especially Fed, have not just amazing talent, but a decisive resolve when it comes to high-pressure situations when things aren't going their way. I don't think Murray can acheive that mental state because I don't think it is part of who he really is. He can, of course, 'keep it together' for the best-of-three tournaments, where he regularly shows off his talent. When it comes to any of the Grand Slams, though, a person with poor mental or emotional strength cannot survive the agonizingly long road that leads to the trophy.