ESPN Tennis

It seemed just like old times again in Rome on Sunday: Roger versus Rafa in a big final -- in fact, it was their first clash in a Grand Slam or Masters 1000 final since the championship match of the French Open way back in 2011.

This is your basic good news-bad news story. Good, in the sense that these two superb, amazingly prolific and consistent competitors (28 Grand Slam titles between them, and a mind-boggling 45 Masters) are still on each other’s dance cards at some of the peak moments on the calendar. You have to admire their diligence and relish for the game.

In fact, if they’re not careful they may find themselves sharing a bagel before some yet-to-come final, much the way Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova did at the US Open in one of the last clashes of what is the greatest rivalry tennis ever produced.

Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer will never catch up with Evert and Navratilova when it comes to the sheer volume of matches -- perhaps nobody ever will. The ladies played a grand total of 80 matches, with Navratilova emerging on top 43-37. Roger and Rafa have played less than half that many matches (30), with Nadal now ahead 20-10.

And that brings us to the bad news:

Evert, who was two years older than Navratilova, dominated the early years of the rivalry. But once Navratilova hit her stride she reversed the tide. Navratilova won 25 of their last 32 matches. Likewise, Nadal is almost five years younger than Federer, who will turn 32 in August. Rafa has beaten Federer in 12 of their past 16 meetings (all surfaces), and the painful beating (6-1, 6-3) Rafa inflicted on his pal in Rome tells you that the use-by date on this rivalry may be past.

Unfortunately -- or is it “luckily?” -- Rafa never got the memo. He’s got this streak of humility that is beginning to look nothing less than bizarre, and it looks as though he’s going to cling to it no matter what the record books or scoreboards say. Who else would have reacted the way he did after Nadal won his sixth title of year and his back-to-back Masters in Rome?

"If you told me four or five months ago that after eight tournaments I would have won six titles from eight finals, I would say you are crazy,” said Nadal, conveniently ignoring the fact that by his definition several million tennis fans suddenly qualify as certified lunatics.

Seriously -- was anyone surprised that Nadal, who has been virtually unbeatable on clay throughout his career, returned to the tour this winter after his eight-month layoff and picked up right where he left off? Nadal also added: “To win three Master 1000s and two ATP 500 tournaments is more than I ever dreamed.”

Oh, please. Enough with the drama and humble protestations. Rafa is starting to sound like that gazillionaire who pleads abject poverty even as he’s adding a few million to his bank account with a 10-minute stock trade. I’m not going to question Nadal’s sincerity, but there’s something patently cuckoo about this degree of humility when it comes to his performance and record on clay.

So here we are on the brink of the French Open, and it sure looks like the same view we’ve had for every year but one since 2005 (Nadal is 52-1 at Roland Garros with seven titles in eight tries).

“I don’t want to think about Roland Garros yet,” Nadal said Sunday. “Let me enjoy this victory."

I have a funny feeling that the way Nadal is playing, nobody else wants to think about Roland Garros, either. Should Federer find his way to the final to meet Nadal yet again, I’d suggest he bring a cyanide pill for himself, not a bagel to share.

On Thursday, the USTA and ESPN jointly announced that, as of 2015, the network will become the official broadcast partner of the organization that owns and presents the US Open. This is a landmark tennis -- and media -- event, another major step in how tennis fits into an evolving broadcast and digital landscape.

In short, the event is moving to a new vista that is ideally suited to the game.

Tennis in general has always suffered -- and continues to suffer to this very day in some places -- from having too much product and too little bandwidth on which to showcase it. The sheer number of matches, especially at a major, makes it difficult to translate on a single television channel. The announcement that ESPN plans to stream every main-draw singles match -- on personal computers, tablets and smartphones -- is a solution to a long-standing problem. It allows digital-savvy tennis viewers to tailor their experience.

“On the first day of our discussions, the USTA asked us about the possibility of providing coverage of all 17 courts,” ESPN President John Skipper said in a conference call Thursday. “There right now is what I hope will soon become an anachronistic phrase; they have six ‘television courts.’ We were happy to give our answer pretty quickly that our intention during the course of this tournament is to make every one of those matches available.”

The previously announced change in the semifinals and finals schedule -- one that tennis stakeholders (led by the players) had lobbied for -- also comes into play here. Super Saturday had outlived its usefulness. That format, which forced the women to play their semifinals on Friday and final on Saturday and the men to play Saturday semis and a Sunday final, without the traditional day of rest in between, ends after 2014.

A cable and digital play, rather than a traditional network, combined with more breathing room in the schedule, gives the US Open some much-needed flexibility. ESPN has multiple channels to show events on -- preventing the kind of outcome tennis fans saw when the Sony Open in Miami cut away before the final was over because the network airing it had other sports commitments.

Make no mistake, this deal is another example of how the structure of tennis, and its unique problems -- or opportunities -- are fitting into an evolving television and digital environment.

Maria Sharapova is looking at a scenario that even Roger Federer, in the darkest moments of his rivalry with Rafael Nadal, hasn't had to contemplate. Her legacy may be dominated by the fact she can't compete with Serena Williams.

At least Federer can say that Nadal's advantage, and superior head-to-head, was contained to clay. Sharapova, it seems, is hard put to compete Williams on any surface, at any time and place.

That's one of the major takeaways after the end of the Madrid combined event. (The other is that Rafael Nadal is as close as humanly possible to being unbeatable on clay. Yawn.) Much was made before Sunday's final between No. 1 Williams and No. 2 Sharapova. Partly because the top ranking was up for grabs, and partly because of the great strides Sharapova has made in her clay-court game.

Sharapova, we were often reminded, brought a 17-match clay-court streak into the final. (And she'd won 27 of her previous 28 clay matches, which includes her win at the 2012 French Open.) Meanwhile, Williams hadn't won a tournament in red clay in more than a decade (2002). Some pundits conveniently forgot that Williams herself was 28-1 on clay of any color or texture, starting from the beginning of 2010.

Sharapova also brought a significant advantage in age. She's just 26, while 31-year-old Serena is at that the point where every title you win is just an added blessing. As she told the media after she roughed up Sharapova again, 6-1, 6-4: "Who knows if I'll ever win another title? I just want to live in the moment and the dream every chance I get."

Extending her career to full stretch may end up costing Williams; heck, she may even lose another match to Sharapova, who has beaten her only twice but not since the fall of 2004 -- an absurdly long time. The women could meet again on red clay, perhaps even twice as they're both entered in Rome (this week) and the French Open. Sharapova will have chances to improve that dismal 2-13 head-to-head statistic, but it will be difficult for her to adequately soften the blow history will deal when the two women's careers are compared.

We've never had anything quite like this disparity between two truly outstanding players and consistent Grand Slam champions, at least not in recent memory. For example, Steffi Graf was 29-11 against Gabriela Sabatini, but the latter won but one Grand Slam title while Sharapova has a career Grand Slam.

There are two components in any match-up: the mental/emotional and the strategic/tactical. Sharapova is at a continuing disadvantage in both departments when it comes to Williams. You could see the doubt and even fear in the grim visage Sharapova presented through most of the Madrid final. By contrast, Williams was icy and dead serious. All you needed to know about the emotional factors in this match-up was there to see in the absolute indifference and lack of anything like mutual empathy or sympathy when the women met for the ritual postmatch handshake.

The strategic and tactical differences are easier to quantify. Sharapova's inconsistency at the service line is self-sabotaging, and her woes are compounded by the fact that Williams tees off with impunity on the good serves Sharapova does deliver. Sunday, we saw Sharapova's slow first step after the serve fully exposed. Time and again she was lucky just to get her racket on Williams' service return. You almost wanted to turn your face from the spectacle.

By contrast, Williams's serve -- said by so many to be the best ever in women's tennis -- consistently poses questions Sharapova is hard put to answer. Once again, a lack of quick reaction time on Sharapova's part becomes painfully obvious. Sharapova's success in clay owes in large part to the extra time the slow surface gives her against most women. Williams successfully takes that time away.

Right now it looks like Sharapova's only real hope lies in her age advantage. As the wear and tear increases on Williams, she will become more vulnerable. But realistically, and to be fair to Williams at her best, the truth is that this is a rivalry that never happened.

Judging from the events in recent days at the Madrid Masters, one of the main themes of the next two months -- the most intense two-month period in any year in tennis -- will be: Is Roger Federer finished as a force at the top of the game?

Federer, the beloved all-time Grand Slam singles title champ, has won just one Grand Slam singles title in his past 12 tries (contrast that to the three-year period starting in January 2004, when he won nine of the 13 majors he played). He'll be trying to defend that most recent triumph at Wimbledon. Given his outstanding record at that most prestigious of events (he's won seven of the past 10 tournaments there), Wimbledon may represent his last best chance to remain in the mix at the very top of the game.

It had to come to this. It always does, and it will come to this for Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros someday and for Novak Djokovic in Melbourne someday. Once again, Federer is a kind of trailblazer. He's foreshadowing the end of the era in which the main theme has been, can anyone beat Federer on a Slam-in, Slam-out basis?

Thursday in Madrid, a tough if not imaginative Kei Nishikori eliminated Federer in the third round. Nishikori may be a counterpunching baseliner, but his record on clay has been woeful. The only top-40 player he'd ever previously beaten on clay was Mardy Fish, and that was years ago in Houston. And nobody ever accused Fish of being a tough out on clay. Now, Nishikori has a win over Federer, too.

You could put Federer's loss down to rust; after all, he's been MIA for about two months, relaxing and preparing for the summer slog. But the surprising element in the match with Nishikori was the way Federer just faded away after he evened the match at a set apiece with a masterful 6-1, 32-minute blitz. This time, Federer was unable to keep the stick in fifth gear. He played a pair of terrible back-to-back games from 1-1 in the third set to fall behind 3-1. It was a deficit from which he never recovered. The only accurate word for the way he lost is "meekly."

Now keep in mind that this is the same Roger Federer who was 34-6 with three titles in Madrid (on both hard courts as well as the clay that became the surface in 2009), and was the defending champion. He won the title last year on that infamous "Smurf" blue clay, but thanks partly to the altitude in Madrid, he's had plenty of luck on the traditional red stuff, too.

Madrid has been one of Federer's best events. He reached the quarterfinals in his first try in Madrid (on a hard court in 2002) and he had been in the semis or finals every year since. The titles he won in Madrid include a welcome mastery of his clay-court nemesis, Rafael Nadal (2009).

You have to wonder, is this third-round loss a harbinger?

On the positive side, you can always fall back on the theory that Federer couldn't care less about his results in tour events. What does he have left to prove, or gain? Perhaps he decided to play the Madrid and Rome Masters mainly to tune up his game for one of the few things he does still care about -- the upcoming Grand Slam in Paris. And, of course, his title defense at Wimbledon.

One inconvenient truth about Federer's situation is that while he qualifies for exemption from Masters events by all three criteria (he's over 31, he has logged 12 years of active duty and he has won more than 600 matches), his ranking is going to head south if he doesn't play and win matches. He needs those W's in order to retain a high ranking and a high seeding in upcoming events. The last thing Federer wants is to meet Nadal or Djokovic in the third or fourth round of a major. I imagine the younger champs share that feeling.

Federer didn't get one of those valuable W's on Thursday, and he'll probably find them tougher and tougher to secure as time goes on. It's a cruel aspect of the sport, but also a natural one. It's going to be an interesting two months for the most successful champion the sport has ever produced.

Three familiar faces that have been hidden from us for weeks now will reappear in the big Madrid combined event in the coming days: those of Roger Federer, Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka.

They aren't exactly rushing over to Spain just to grab cool free T-shirts and towels; the fact is all three of those players need to play matches, especially with the French Open quickly coming up on the horizon -- and their most dangerous rivals looking pretty dialed in after a few weeks on the red clay.

Federer is the defending champion in Madrid, but 2012 has an even more long-ago-and-far-away feel than in most cases. Last year, Madrid promoter Ion Tiriac caused an international firestorm when he decided to tear up the familiar and traditional red clay courts in favor of courts that were -- accurately -- described as "smurf blue."

Ultimately, the playing properties of the blue clay worked in Federer's favor, while Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic went complaining, slipping and sliding right out of the tournament. But Madrid is back on what you might call their "home court" of red clay this year. That might spell trouble for Federer, who hasn't hit a ball for money since he lost to Nadal in the quarterfinals of Indian Wells a two full months ago -- as long a period (almost to the day) as Federer had off in what is theoretically the end-of-the-year offseason.

In the interim, Federer climbed back up to No. 2 in the rankings (behind Djokovic) without lifting a racket. Nice work if you can get it, eh? But let no one say that the 31-year-old all-time Grand Slam singles champ doesn't deserve a break during the clay season now and then, given how dismally his game matches up with that of his red-clay nemesis, Nadal.

Given Federer's age and his résumé, and the official exemptions he's earned through a combination of those two factors, Federer isn't obliged to play Madrid even though it's a Masters 1000 event. But he probably wants to get some match play before he forgets which side to serve from at deuce. As well, the altitude helps his aggressive game, and he has an excellent history in Madrid since it became a clay-court event in 2009. Federer has been in three of the four finals and one semi. He won twice -- over Tomas Berdych on the blue clay last year, and he got the better of Nadal on the red dirt in 2009.

Serena is also the defending champion in Madrid, and like Federer, she's been cooling her jets; she last played on the green clay in Charleston, where she won the title. The blue clay last year was even slicker and harder than Charleston's Har-Tru surface, and you have to wonder how Serena will like having to defend her title back on the red clay, where her record at Madrid has been lackluster. She's played the event only three times, and won exactly one match during the two red-clay versions -- and that lone victory was an epic 7-6 in-the-third second-round war with No. 43 Vera Dushevina.

On the surface, this suggests that Serena may be vulnerable. But you can go broke quickly betting against Serena, and the altitude will help her game as well.

Then there's Azarenka, who fell from the No. 1 ranking and off our radar with remarkably little fuss or fanfare. Serena wiped up the blue clay with her in last year's final, 6-3, 6-1 -- and that was shortly after Azarenka compiled her 26-match winning streak. The big difference this year may be the red clay, but don't jump to any conclusions -- Azarenka will be rusty after her own two-month layoff (partly because of an ankle injury she sustained at Indian Wells), and she likes faster courts. Azarenka has trouble powering through people on red clay.

The more serious concern for both these MIA champions might be the continuing emergence of Maria Sharapova as a clay-court force. Like their male counterpart Federer, these prodigal WTA champions have good reason to cast anxious glances over their shoulders.

For the second time in less than a year, Rafael Nadal has been upstaged by Lukas Rosol, a 6-foot-5, 27-year-old ball punisher from the Czech Republic. The first time, in case you spent last year living under a rock, was in the second round at Wimbledon, where Rosol eliminated Nadal and helped drive him into a seven-month sabbatical.

Nadal won the Barcelona tournament Sunday, logging his eight win in nine attempts in that city and rebounding from his failure -- by a whisker -- to win his ninth consecutive title in Monte Carlo.

Nadal wins another title on clay. Ho-hum.

Even dedicated Nadalistas must grow a little tired of this, no? Nadal on clay makes the Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls, the Joe Montana San Francisco 49ers and the Derek Jeter New York Yankees look semi-successful.

Rosol, by contrast, is more than a year older than Nadal and ranked No. 35. Until Sunday, he had yet to play a singles final at any tour event. But he spanked Guillermo Garcia-Lopez 6-3, 6-2 to win in Bucharest, and you know you've accomplished something when you beat a Spanish dude with two last names on a red clay court. You want more backstory? Rosol's father died just 10 days ago. After his breakthrough win, an emotional Rosol reflected:

"I wanted to dedicate this trophy to someone, so I found the energy; I felt somebody was helping me from up top. It's not just about me. My family has always supported me and my tennis. … I will remember this week. It was very emotional for me and is something special. I found a way to beat some good players and succeed."

Let's be frank: This story was a heckuva lot more compelling than the tale of yet another Nadal blowout followed by Nadal issuing all kinds of disclaimers about his superiority. But we know better. Nadal is the matador, and the guy he beat in Barcelona (Nicolas Almagro) is just another deferential torero on the Spanish depth chart. Almagro got two more games off Nadal than Garcia-Lopez (another of those toreros) did off Rosol, so that's something -- I guess.

Nadal has 38 straight wins in Barcelona, and he's won 80 of the past 82 sets he's played there. The clay season has barely started, and Nadal has already salted away three titles on the red stuff. This guy has won 23 clay-court titles at Roland Garros and Masters 1000 events alone.

These events underscore just how fortunate we are to have the present ATP setup, with multiple second- and third-tier tournaments going on during all but the most critical weeks -- the weeks of the Masters 1000 events and Grand Slam events. OK, Barcelona was an ATP 500 while Bucharest was one of the lowest-rung 250s. The important thing is that with the players well spread out, and none of the other big-four stars slinging forehands, we got a break from the predictable Rafa-centric storylines that are interrupted only on rarest of occasions.

Novak Djokovic may throw a monkey wrench into Nadal's gears again this year, as he did in 2011 (and as he did in Monte Carlo, just over a week ago). But short of that, the chances are slim that anyone will beat Rafa in a duel on the dust.

Grass may be a different story, and if you're hoping for a projected second-round rematch between Nadal and Rosol (shades of John Isner against Nicolas Mahut, the rematch!), you can just forget about it. Rosol is playing his way into a seeding at Wimbledon.

So much for backstory.

With top-seeded David Ferrer out of the way, victim of a first-round upset at the hands of Dmitry Tursunov, there's a fair chance that the No. 2 seed will have a good shot at winning the Barcelona ATP 500 tournament. Of course, I'm talking about Rafael Nadal.

Never mind that wags suggest that as soon as Ferrer saw Nadal's name in the draw he dropped everything and lit out for the Pyrenees. After all, didn't Nadal shellac Ferrer under similar circumstances just a few weeks ago in Acapulco? Ferrer is as game as they come, but Nadal has more game than all comers. That explains why Ferrer wears the albatross of a 4-17 record against Nadal around his neck. (Only one of those wins was in the years since 2007.)

Of course, Rafa will have to win two matches on clay Friday in order to advance to the semifinals, thanks to the rain that washed out almost all the tennis in Barcelona Thursday. He won his first with a 7-6 (2), 6-2 win over Benoit Paire. The situation is a comment on the growing but risky trend to leave very little wiggle room for postponements and interruptions in this era when byes are used to prop up artificially large draws, and the top players often express an interest in getting in and out of town quickly. A late start can doom a pro to playing four or five matches in as many days.

The 64-draw tournament in Barcelona requires just one fewer round than the seven played to determine the champ at a Grand Slam, but it's played in half the time (one week instead of two). Why the glut?

Over on the WTA side in Stuttgart, Germany, the women are content to offer a one-week draw of 32 with four byes -- meaning that the top four seeds (including No. 1 Maria Sharapova and No. 2 Li Na) will have to win only four matches to take the title. OK, that's not going into anyone's books as an Ironwoman feat. But it certainly makes more sense than putting Nadal in a position to play two matches on the same day. I thought that kind of thing went out with the Under-18 Northern New Jersey Amateur Clay-court Championships (or the NNJACCC)!

Maybe Nadal is doing cartwheels at the prospect of playing two matches on the same day. After all, just last week he was grousing about not really finding his clay-court groove yet, and needing more matches. Last Sunday, after Novak Djokovic ended Nadal's 46-match, eight-tournament winning streak in Monte Carlo, Nadal said:

"I think for me it was a positive week. I didn't have the practice [at home] in Mallorca, I just practiced here before the tournament. With not much preparation, I was able to play in the finals, a few matches. This week [is] going to help me be fit for the next weeks. Hopefully I can play another great week in Barcelona next week, play some matches that will keep helping to put me in the 100 percent condition physically."

Somehow, though, I don't think playing back-to-back matches in Barcelona is exactly what Nadal had in mind. And when you consider how diligently he has avoided overtaxing the left knee that kept him at home doing therapy for most of last year, you wonder if the risk is worth it for Nadal.

Unless Nadal wants to line up and knock down two rivals without a break in between, all that warming up and cooling down will create a new and different kind of stress on his joints. Is he comfortable putting them through that?

I'm tempted to speculate that after one match Friday Nadal will politely decline to continue, and give his next opponent a free pass to the semifinals.

On the other hand, tournament organizers are probably banking on the fact that Nadal has won 35 matches in a row at this tournament, and hasn't lost in Barcelona in a full decade. The thought of surrendering two amazing records in back-to-back weeks just may be a little too much for Nadal to tolerate.

The major theme of the past eight months in tennis went largely unnoticed and perhaps even unrecognized because of continuing uncertainty about the condition of Rafael Nadal's knees, the struggles of Andy "will he or won't he" Murray and speculation about how much more Roger Federer still has left to give to the game.

It was easy to overlook the fact that when Nadal took a break after losing in the second round of the 2012 Wimbledon tournament, in order to tend to his aching knees, we were at a high point in the Nadal-Novak Djokovic rivalry. Just weeks earlier at the French Open, Nadal had racked up his third consecutive win over Djokovic in the span of just six weeks on Euroclay. It was Nadal's response to having lost his previous seven meetings to Djokovic (all in 2011).

On Sunday in Monte Carlo, Djokovic emphatically reminded Nadal that they still had some unfinished business. He halted Nadal's 46-match winning streak at the event and prevented Nadal from winning his ninth consecutive Monte Carlo title with an impressive and somewhat unexpected win, 6-2, 7-6 (1). Djokovic also crept closer in the head-to-head record, which now favors Nadal by a slender 19-15.

I write "unexpected" mainly because Monte Carlo has always been a gimme for Nadal, and last week Djokovic still appeared hampered by an ankle he rolled back during the previous Davis Cup week. Djokovic struggled mightily in his first two matches in Monaco, while Nadal did what he does best: He crushed people (Grigor Dimitrov was the lone exception) mercilessly, all the while shuffling his feet and with downcast eyes mumbling that he was not the prohibitive favorite.

Maybe Rafa knew something we did not: that the big story in tennis, while put on hold, is still the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry. It certainly looked as if Djokovic knew that, as well, and it just whetted his appetite. That's a great sign for the rest of the year.

It's funny how Djokovic is still suffering somewhat from the third-wheel status he held for a few years, while the Nadal-Federer rivalry was still at the forefront of most fans' minds. You would have thought that the exceptional record Djokovic accumulated in 2011 would have permanently elevated his status, but the slight decline in his 2012 results, carrying over into this year, worked against him.

Many said Djokovic isn't the player he was in 2011, among them a healthy number of embittered Nadal and Federer fans. To which Djokovic more or less responded with results that proclaimed, "No, I'm not, but I'm still better than anyone else out there."

Djokovic is 26-2 this year; Nadal is 21-2, while Murray is 20-3 and Federer is 13-4. (By the way, any news yet from the search party looking for that Swiss climber of great mountains?) But Djokovic owns the bragging rights. He's already got three titles, one on each of the three major surfaces, and he's won the only Grand Slam event played thus far. And Djokovic has beaten Nadal and Murray in their only meetings this year.

The Monte Carlo final wasn't about Rafa's knee or Nole's ankle. It was about Nadal's elbow and throat -- and Djokovic's spirit. Nadal did not appear ready for the level of competition Djokovic provided, perhaps because the latter is the only player on the planet who seems completely comfortable playing against Nadal on red clay. Nadal senses this, and it brings out what might be Nadal's unacknowledged Achilles heel -- his innate caution.

There are technical aspects to Djokovic's advantage in the tale of the tape, as well. Djokovic's superb ability to redirect the path of the ball, particularly to go down the line, is a critical weapon for him -- and that two-handed backhand is firm enough to really put sting into the shot. His relatively flat shots also take time away from Nadal and open up the court more easily and quickly. Djokovic simply uses a lot more of the court than does Nadal; it's almost as if Djokovic uses the doubles alleys and Nadal has to stick within the singles lines.

Well, it's easy to read too much into a single match. But this appears to be a huge win, demonstrating that Nadal still feels mentally off-balance after his long layoff, while Djokovic is ready to pick up right where he left off because, he might say, "times a-wastin."

What was that, you say? Rafael Nadal lost a set? It's true, but despite a hiccup in his Friday quarterfinal matchup versus Grigor Dimitrov, recent events indicate you may just as well fill in his name as the winner of Monte Carlo, as well as the next two Masters 1000 events, plus the French Open. 'S-Hertogenbosch? Who knows? Even I can only see so far into the future.

You can stick a Ferrer in here, a Tsonga there, a Djokovic somewhere else. But as of now, it looks like Nadal will be impossible to beat on clay.

On Thursday in Monte Carlo, the No. 4 seed and former Wimbledon finalist Tomas Berdych fell to Italy's Fabulous Fabio Fognini, 6-4, 6-2 (ouch!). Then No. 2 seed Andy Murray lost to Stanislas Wawrinka in under an hour, 6-1, 6-2 (yikes!). As a by-product, Murray fell back down to No. 3, behind -- guess who? -- Roger Federer.

Oh, and top-ranked and top-seeded Novak Djokovic struggled to post a comeback win against No. 14 seed Juan Monaco. Yes, the same Juan Monaco who's won exactly two tournament matches this year, both in Houston last week.

Meanwhile, Nadal has improved his Monte Carlo record to 47-1, including his triumph over Dimitrov. Friday was just the third set he's lost in the past six years at this event. He's won Monte Carlo eight times running but clearly feels he's just getting warmed up, even though he was seeded a lowly No. 5 because of all the time he took off last year to tend to his ailing knees. Anybody who thinks he's not going to win his ninth title in Monaco raise your hand.

Nadal's record in Monte Carlo is amazing, given that it's the first clay-court event of the European tour and everyone is just working into his clay-court mojo. As the results of his rivals this week (and in recent years) amply demonstrate, this picturesque seaside tournament is a warm-up event. Nobody feels an urgency to run the table in Monte Carlo, not with the Madrid and Rome Masters on the horizon, followed by the World Championships on clay at Roland Garros.

I don't even believe that Nadal feels an urgency to win in Monaco; he just can't help himself.

"I cannot say I'm the biggest favorite to win here again," the Spaniard told reporters at the start of the event. When they stopped laughing, they dutifully jotted down the quote.

Nadal added, "This is not an easy event to win. I don't want to lose perspective, but I don't want to lose, either."

Hey, Rafa. I've got news for you: Don't worry about losing the "perspective." You can win this thing playing right-handed, with Federer tied to your left leg.

That nobody has stepped up to push Rafa in even one set, while the men ranked above him (Djokovic and Murray) have struggled or lost, is a bit disappointing for anyone who was hoping for a competitive tournament.

Granted, a lot can change in the next few weeks as players find their sea legs. Murray is trying to figure out the clay game -- and dedicated to mastering it. Good for him, but the situation just illustrates the width of the gap between Murray and Nadal.

Djokovic rolled an ankle in Davis Cup (his most recent event), and at times in his match with Monaco he looked hobbled and uncomfortable. The last time I checked, ankles don't get better from the abuse inflicted on them in typical tennis matches. And Djokovic may well be harming his chances in the more important tournaments to come just by playing in Monaco. (My own theory is that he feels obliged to play in Monte Carlo, as the tax-dodge principality allowed him to establish residence there).

That leaves only one Grand Slam champion standing in Rafa's way until the tour moves to grass in mid-June -- Federer. But he's 31 now, out of action until Madrid, and Nadal is kryptonite to him on clay.

Besides, Federer may be in no shape to challenge anyone after being tied to Nadal's leg and getting dragged around as Nadal powers to the title Sunday.

John Isner won the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championship in Houston on Sunday, on the same surface -- red clay -- where all of the ATP action up to and including the French Open will take place over the next two months. Ordinarily, that would be a great sign going into the first big clay-court Masters 1000 event of the year in Monte Carlo.

Isner, No. 23 in the rankings before Houston, has struggled. He was a disappointing 7-8 on the year going in, despite the home-nation advantage afforded by the two big hard-court Masters events, Indian Wells and Miami. Isner must have breathed an enormous sigh of relief Sunday after he posted wins on successive days over No. 3 seed Juan Monaco and top-seeded Nicolas Almagro -- both clay-court experts. After the surprisingly uneventful 6-3, 7-5 win (what, an Isner match and no tiebreakers?), Isner said this:

"I've always known I could play well on clay. This week is a little surprising, as Monday was the first day I hit a ball on clay since September. I knew it was going to be a tough adjustment and that I had to find a way to get through my first match. I felt I played better each and every round. I played well yesterday [against Monaco in the semis] and even better [in the final] today."

So should U.S. fans be doing cartwheels now that Isner seems to have broken out of his slump and has asked for -- and received -- a wild card into Monte Carlo? After all, he's put up some impressive results on clay. Last year in Davis Cup matches, he had best-of-five red-clay wins over, among others, Roger Federer, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Gilles Simon. He was a finalist on dirt in Belgrade in 2010 (lost to countryman Sam Querrey). And who can forget his second-round battle with top-seeded Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros in 2011? Isner was up two sets to one and lost 6-4 in the fifth set.

The trouble is that Isner seems reluctant to embrace the challenge of European red clay. This is the first year that he'll be playing Monte Carlo. Even if he's asked to go out and compete while jet-lagged and (presumably) somewhat fatigued from his run in Houston, getting right back on the clay -- and staying there for the duration -- might be a good for his game as well as a welcome sign for those who don't think he's really done enough to exploit his abilities in clay in Europe.

Last year, Isner won exactly two tournament matches during the Euroclay season. He beat Philipp Kohlschreiber in Rome -- a good win given that the German was ranked No. 24 at the time and is a gifted, versatile player who grew up on the red clay. The lowlight, of course, was that painful 18-16 fifth-set loss to 30-year-old Paul-Henri Mathieu in the second round at Roland Garros.

As years go, it was actually better than some. Isner is a combined 8-10 at the three major Euroclay tournaments: Madrid, Rome and Roland Garros. He's had back-to-back wins just twice in those 10 tournaments. It isn't merely his record that's wanting -- it's his attendance record.

Unfortunately, this isn't just an Isner problem -- it's an American male singles player problem. Somewhere along the way, at right about the time Andy Roddick came on the scene, the U.S. men seemed to get discouraged and gave up on even trying to do well in Europe. It wasn't that hard a decision to make, given that the majority of the tournaments on the calendar are hard-court events.

But it's a shame to see a player whose game is quietly and counterintuitively suited to clay give up on the stuff (the slower surface tends to mitigate Isner's relatively laborious movement, as it has for many tall, powerful men). A good, long dose of red clay might be just what Isner needs right about now. Americans have grown too accustomed to losing on red clay, but it still remains a great surface on which to find your game -- as Isner learned in Houston last week.

You can call this another transitional week in tennis, a seam week, or even something like baseball's All-Star break in reverse. After Miami, the big dogs went to sleep under the porch, leaving the rest of the pack to fight over what limelight and rewards exist out there. Whatever you call it, this is one of those weeks when you're gnawing on the inside of your cheek, waiting for something significant to happen.

Apologies to those of you whose idea of must-watch TV was the Robin Haase against Kenny de Schepper match in Casablanca (which may not even have been on TV).

It's another unique aspect of tennis, a sport with a 10-month season that has been vociferously criticized by Rafael Nadal and others as too demanding, too tiring, too conducive to injury. But the lull we've been living through since the end of the Miami combined event (with the exception of the Davis Cup, which is outside purview of the ATP tour) demonstrates for the second but not final time this year that you just can't compare tennis to the mainstream sports when it comes to seasons and offseasons.

Take the case of Andy Murray. The Scot, No. 2 in the world following his win in Miami, was out of action (along with everyone else) for a month and a half before the start of the year. Then he played two tournaments in Australia, including the first Grand Slam of the year. Then he was off for close to six weeks before playing Indian Wells and Miami. After Miami, he pulled back for another few weeks and will resume play in Monte Carlo.

I know that he, like his peers, needs to work on his fitness and his game. But he's played just five weeks of tennis (Indian Wells and Miami are 10-day events, but the bye system essentially makes it a one-week event for seeded players like Murray) since the middle of last November. Somehow, it just doesn't seem onerous -- even if he doesn't have a lengthy offseason because of it.

Then take the man Murray replaced at No. 2, Roger Federer. We last saw him at Indian Wells in mid-March, and we won't see him again until the Madrid event at the end of the first week in May. He'll have played all of five weeks in 2013 at that time. OK, the all-time singles Grand Slam champ is a dad now, and he's 31, a regular tennis grandpa. He's earned the right to play as little or as much as he likes. But, like a Ray Lewis or Kobe Bryant, he's still an enormous draw and at or close to the top of his game.

How about Nadal? Oh, his day is coming all right -- and soon. But since early July of 2012, he's played just four weeks. We all know it was an injury that kept him out of action for nearly seven months. Yet he didn't have surgery, and he returned and very quickly became a major force again. It's hard to imagine him playing any less while still remaining relevant at No. 5. And for contrast, consider this: David Ferrer, his Spanish countryman who inched ahead of Nadal to No. 4, has played eight weeks so far this year, and those are honest weeks because he went deep at every tournament he played except Indian Wells, where he lost in the second round. Like Federer, Ferrer is 31. But unlike Federer and the others under discussion here, he's shown that it's possible to play a lot as well as win a lot.

What all this shows is that tennis has evolved into a true flex sport in which the players can pretty much create their own schedules. It's a sport of intervals, built around five major occasions (the Grand Slams and the year-end championships).

In comparison to other sports, tennis operates under some kind of Mayan calendar that's hard to figure. But this option that enables players to tailor their schedules to their personal needs couldn't exist if the calendar were truly streamlined and fat-free, somehow compressed into a season more like you see in other sports, along with a longer offseason. And to those players who think that more traditional approach might be preferable, I can only say: Be careful what you wish for.

Once again, a Davis Cup truism kicked in and played an outsized role in determining the outcome of a tie -- in this case, the clash of the U.S. and Serbia in Boise, Idaho, this weekend. The motto? Beware the doubles.

Going into the tie, the skinny was that with No. 1-ranked Novak Djokovic on board for Serbia, the U.S. needed to win both singles matches against Serbia's No. 2, Viktor Troicki. The apparent (and only rational) game plan basically rested on a Day 1 split, followed by a doubles win by the ultra-reliable Bryan brothers that would leave the home team up 2-1 going into the final two matches.

With that lead, Djokovic could best Sam Querrey in the fourth rubber and the Americans would still be looking good going into that fifth and decisive rubber between John Isner and Troicki. Querrey was obliged to play No. 1 (because he's ranked higher than Isner), but Isner is the big dog on the squad, the most experienced and dangerous player on the U.S. team.

The assignment was doable: Querrey is ranked No. 20 and Isner No. 23. Troicki is No. 44, and he'd be playing away from home, on an indoor hard court tailor-made to give the U.S. the best chance of winning.

Nobody counted on Bob and Mike Bryan losing -- not when Ilija Bozoljac, half of Serbia's doubles team, was ranked No. 335 in singles and No. 1,150 in doubles. That zero in there isn't a typo. And it isn't like Bozoljac is a rising young star; he'll be 28 in August. Granted, his partner, Nenad Zimonjic, was a doubles expert and multiple Grand Slam champion. But the Bryans are, well, the Bryans, winners of more tournaments, including Grand Slam events, than any team in the history of the sport.

Interestingly, Troicki and Zimonjic won the doubles when Serbia played France in the 2010 final (after which Troicki emerged as the overall hero when he subbed for Janko Tipsarevic and clinched the win in the decisive fifth singles rubber). But Serbian captain Bogdan Obradovic elected not to play him in Boise. Either he was saving Troicki for a potential fifth-rubber singles or Obradovic knew something about Bozoljac that we -- and the Bryans -- didn't.

Bozoljac and Zimonjic were 4-2 going into this tie, and that included a win over Great Britain's Andy Murray and Greg Rusedski. It helps explain how and why the U.S. game plan went up in smoke on doubles day. Bozoljac and Zimonjic weathered everything the American threw at them and ultimately won the 4-hour, 23-minute epic, 7-6 (5), 7-6 (1), 5-7, 4-6, 15-13. The Serbs served up 36 aces to just 12 by the Bryans, and they hammered out a whopping 125 winners (to 80 by the Bryans).

The Bryans had been 20-3 coming into the tie, just one of those matches a five-setter. This was the first time the Bryans lost two matches in a row, but they were gracious in defeat. "We have to tip our hats to those guys," Bob Bryan said. "Obviously, I thought they played well all day, 36 aces and they didn't give us much opportunity, especially in the fifth."

Obradovic said after Djokovic clinched the tie with a fourth-rubber win over Querrey: "Nenad yesterday played really good doubles match with Ilija Bozoljac, which was the player that almost no one here knows nothing about him."

There are a few things worth remembering about the doubles rubber, which is always the third match of a tie and the only one played on Saturday:

1. It is almost by definition a potential momentum shifter.

2. Seven of the past 10 Davis Cup champions won the doubles in the final round.

3. If you have an outstanding doubles team, you can win a tie even if you concede the two singles matches to the other team's star player.

4. If you can't count on your doubles team, you'll need at least one win out of your weaker player -- and two out of your No. 1.

5. Almost all the dynastic Davis Cup teams (think the U.S. teams that featured Stan Smith and Bob Lutz, or John McEnroe and Peter Fleming) have been anchored by a great doubles team.

The truth is that the road to the Davis Cup title runs right through the doubles alley.

When we last left Sam Querrey, he was utterly disgusted after a shockingly one-sided 6-1, 6-1 loss to Tomas Berdych in the fourth round of the Sony Open a little more than a week ago. After the match, Querrey turned ruefully philosophical: "You know, the more you miss, the harder it gets to get the ball in. It just kept getting worse. I want to put it behind me and move on to Davis Cup."

Did anyone tell this poor guy that now that he's the No. 1-ranked player in the U.S. (at No. 20, he's three ticks ahead of his pal and fellow tall boy, John Isner), his assignment in the Davis Cup quarterfinal tie this week in Boise, Idaho, will be to face world No. 1 Novak Djokovic of Serbia in the often decisive fourth match?

Any port in a storm, as they say.

And that's just the problem for captain Jim Courier's Team USA. Both of the squad's singles players, Querrey and Isner, are hoping to overcome recent setbacks. By the same token, earning a Davis Cup win over the champions of 2010 would be a big step in the right direction for both men. The task isn't as daunting as it was before the Serbs lost the services of injured No. 10 Janko Tipsarevic. He's been replaced by Viktor Troicki, whose ranking is No. 44. But Troicki handles Davis Cup pressure well.

Troicki's face will be familiar to Isner and Querrey, for he played a significant role the first and only other time Serbia and the U.S. have met. Troicki opened that first-round tie, played in 2010 on clay in Belgrade, with a win over Isner. Djokovic then stopped Querrey in four sets to leave the U.S. down 2-0 after the first day of play. Only the reliable Bryan brothers' win in doubles kept the tie live until Sunday, when Djokovic wrapped it up with a solid but by no means easy win over Isner.

That tie was significant because for the first time in about a decade, the U.S. was without the services of Andy Roddick, James Blake or Mardy Fish. And though Querrey and Isner acquitted themselves well and had excellent chemistry (they had a bromance going there for a while), they never did become the overnight one-two punch some expected. It was partly because Querrey struggled with his form and Fish had an unexpected but impressive resurgence -- until he was laid low by heart trouble last year.

Isner and Querrey represented the U.S. in its last two ties. This is an excellent chance for them to continue the promising but aborted transition that began in 2010 and to get their own games back on track as well. Isner has produced some terrific Davis Cup results; last year, he had upsets of Roger Federer, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Gilles Simon -- all on red clay, no less. But he's been in the doldrums lately.

After Isner lost to Marin Cilic in the third round in Miami, he used almost the same words that Querrey would a day later. He said, "It felt like every ball that he made, I then missed with my forehand. That's what it felt like out there. [Now I have to] go back, train and try to get my a-- in gear for Davis Cup. That's a big task for our team, a big task for me."

Perhaps their shared discontent with recent events will inspire Querrey and Isner. Hitting the reset button could benefit this pair of tall, power-serving kids, and it could do wonders for the U.S. Davis Cup effort.

Two wins over Troicki and the usual Bryan brothers doubles performance could get the job done. Add (or substitute) a win over Djokovic, the best player in the world, and the win would be even sweeter.

Andy Murray woke up this morning ranked No. 2 in the world (having dislodged Roger Federer from that niche), and he'll still be somewhat puzzled by just how he got there. He was too tired Sunday, after his epic, 2-hour, 45-minute, three-set, back-from-match-point-down win against David Ferrer, to try to figure out the details and fit it into neat sound bites. All but one of them, anyway.

And that lone, towering detail is that Ferrer, a 30-year-old Spaniard with a reputation for never, ever giving up a point without a fight, quit on one Sunday. And the result was disastrous. It was probably the most costly and painful point of his career, as well as the one that deserves most of the credit for Murray waking up with a grin on his face.

If you didn't see the match, Ferrer had match point late in the third set, but he stopped mid-rally, convinced that a penetrating Murray forehand had just missed the sideline. The electronic line-calling system confirmed that the ball had caught the outer edge of the line. Disbelieving, Ferrer played what was left of the match in a daze. Murray crushed him in the ensuing tiebreaker 7-1.

Things happen by accident, or pure bad luck, but maybe not so often as we think. We'll never know, but could it be that Ferrer had that terrible lapse of judgment because he just couldn't handle the pressure of coming so close to achieving something that had eluded the much-loved 30-year-old for all of his career -- a landmark win over a top-five player? (One of the 10 commandments of pro tennis is: Play out the point until a call is made.)

Ferrer has spent most of his career with his nose pressed against the Grand Slam and Masters 1000 glass. His main problem? He can't buy a win over a top-five player. (He's now 0-13 for his career against players ranked in that group.) Granted, it's partly because Ferrer himself is so consistent that he's always a high seed. Thus, he only gets to lock horns with the stud horses of the ATP late in tournaments, when they're dialed in and the stakes are high -- precisely the times when the Djokovics and Nadals of this world are most dangerous.

Beyond that, Ferrer has shown a disappointing tendency to falter when he's presented an opportunity to make a big statement. Granted, the big four of Novak Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Rafael Nadal have cleaned up at major tournaments and Masters. But he's had his chances here and there, and now he's on the far side of 30. Despite being in the top 10 since mid-October 2010, and up in the top five or six since early January 2011, Ferrer has won only one Masters 1000 event -- the Paris Indoors last November. His final-round opponent in that one was a qualifier, Jerzy Janowicz.

This latest loss for Ferrer has to be heartbreaking. He's quickly running out of chances to produce a legacy match. Somehow, the win over Janowicz doesn't cut it, even if it occurred in a Masters-level event. Nor will one of those dogged and bitterly fought, second- or third-round triumphs against an Andreas Seppi or a Gilles Simon. Ferrer will turn 31 Tuesday. He's much loved throughout tennis land, as well as by his peers and betters.

This match, with Murray woozy and staggering much of the time, with Ferrer wearing him down like water sculpting stone, was an opportunity for Ferrer to experience what would almost certainly be his career-defining moment -- a Masters 1000 triumph, capped by a win in the final over a Grand Slam champion, one of the big four. But he let it slip away. And now, who knows? The clock is ticking.

Murray woke up at No. 2 this morning. And Ferrer rolled out of bed up one notch and back at his career-high ranking of No. 4.

Somehow, though, I don't think he was smiling.

American tennis received a shot in the arms a few days ago when the USTA announced that it will raise the prize money doled out at the U.S. Open to $50 million by 2017 -- a figure that nearly doubles the 2012 payout of $28.5 million.

That's great news -- and not just for the players who will reap the windfall (the distribution is yet to be worked out, but you can count on players ranked below the elite level to be the major beneficiaries). It may also reverse an alarming (for U.S. interests) growth of anti-U.S. Open feeling in the increasingly diverse global pool of players.

For some years now, the outcry against the Super Saturday format (which calls upon the ATP players to play their semifinals on Saturday and the final on Sunday) has grown only more strident. So have complaints about the havoc wrought on scheduling by the U.S. Open's habit of playing the first round over three days, which screws up the accepted, simple Grand Slam format of playing on alternate days. Then there's the all-too-familiar, and depressing, fact that for five years in a row now, the men's final has been moved to Monday for reasons related to the weather.

In some ways, those postponements were a godsend. They defused some of the outrage over the Super Saturday format that increasingly has looked not just ill-advised but potentially dangerous, given the degree to which the game has become so much more of a grueling, physical contest. Does anyone think that having to play (although "endure" might be a better word) five-hour matches on back-to-back days on a hard court is a good idea?

These issues, combined with growing disgruntlement about the level of prize money, have festered for a while now, fueling criticism that the USTA is run by out-of-touch volunteers who treat the players like chattel while trying to milk every revenue stream until it runs dry. That perception, whatever its validity, or lack thereof, has poisoned relations between the U.S. Open and the players.

We hit a low point late last year, when the USTA (which owns and administers the U.S. Open) declared that it would add an extra day of play and go with a Monday men's final for 2013 and 2014, while the Australian Open upped its prize money to a level that surpassed that of the projected payout by the USTA for 2013. The players cried, "What????"

But it appears that the USTA, which had been in talks with the ATP Player Council for the better part of a year now, finally came to the conclusion that given the degree of discontent, it needed to do something big to regain the confidence of the top players. Hence, the robust raise.

On Thursday, I spoke with Gordon Smith, the USTA's chief operating officer. Of this new prize-money initiative, he said: "We are the U.S. Open. We need to recognize the value of the players to us, and to our effort to grow the game. We should pay them what they deserve. We talked with the player's council of the ATP for over a year before coming to this point. We learned a lot about each other, and I think it's changed the tone of the relationship."

This boost in prize money may have hit the reset button on the relationship between the USTA and the ATP. The scope of the commitment has mitigated some of the opposition to the upcoming Monday finals. Smith said the top players are now more understanding of the need for a transition that will result in a return (as of 2015) to the alternate-day formula used by the other three majors.

So Super Saturday is a goner; starting in 2015, the men's semis will take place on Friday, and the championship match on Sunday -- just like at the other majors. In addition, the first round will be played over two days, the way it is at the other three majors.

The response to this show of good faith was immediate. In Key Biscayne, Novak Djokovic told reporters: "It's a very positive step for players. You know, it proves that players, I think, are more united than ever. I believe that these are some significant changes in the negotiations with Grand Slams."

The organization is planning a $500 million renovation/expansion of the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in the immediate future, and it will have a better chance to raise the money if it can demonstrate that lenders don't have to worry about the USTA's labor relations.

We're on the verge of a new era for the U.S. Open. Now if only we can find some icons to replace the recently retired Andy Roddick and the aging Williams sisters, the future will look rosy in every way.