French Open 2011 at Roland Garros: Rafael Nadal Beats Roger Federer in French Open Final (Take 4)

For a record-tying sixth time (and a record-breaking sixth time in seven years), Rafael Nadal held the Coupe de Mousquetaires aloft on a Sunday in Paris, a right he earned by beating Roger Federer 7–5, 7–6(3), 5–7, 6–1 in the Men's Singles final.  This was the first singles final in men's tennis history between two players who had both already achieved a career slam.

As close as the scoreline of this match looks (by far their closest French Open final ever), it had every right to be much closer.  Federer was thoroughly in control of the first set, leading it 5-2 before losing seven consecutive games.  He also had several chances to claim the second set, ultimately done in by a very poor start to the tiebreak.  Ironically enough, the one set Federer did win (the third) was likely his worst up to that point.  The only set that Federer didn't seem to control at any point was the fourth, though even in that breadsticking he did have 0-40 on Nadal's serve in the first game.

With its wild, violent momentum swings, this match had the potential to come close to the Wimbledon 2008 epic.  If Federer had won the first, or the second, or made more of a contest out of the fourth, this could easily be talked about as an all-time classic.  But like he had done so many time before, Nadal swatted away every "what if?" to which Federer and his fans clung.

With this title, Nadal increases his total slam count to ten, the majority of which (six) have come on Parisian dirt.

Once the outcome of this match became clear, discussion shifted (as it most always does in a grand slam final) to where this win puts Nadal in the all-time pantheon of tennis greats, and arguments he may have for surpassing Federer as the greatest of all time.

Personally, I don't think another French Open title for Nadal changes much.  He increased his all-time advantage over Federer to 17-8, sure, but Federer remains 6-5 against him on surfaces other than clay.  The main reason the head to head is so lopsided is that Nadal was not good enough on hard courts during the first several years of his career to make it deep enough in the draws of hard court tournaments to face Federer outside the European swing on any sort of regular basis. Nadal has only made the final of the Australian and US Opens once each, whereas Federer has made the finals of every grand slam at least five times over.  Nadal is at least four more years from matching that mark, a mark which I think is crucial when evaluating the sort of well-rounded player a "GOAT" should be.

All that being said, Nadal has to be considered the indisputable best clay courter of all time right now.  Bjorn Borg had six French Open crowns to his name as well, but the litany of other clay accolades Nadal has amassed (Monte Carlo Masters, anyone?) puts him completely over the top. 

The gleeful photos of Nadal holding the trophy year after year often spark comments that he looks like a "happy little kid" out there.  And like any good kid, Nadal clearly is at his best playing in the mud.