Clay event Nadal is most likely to stumble at this season.

Rome. Why?

Because he has the least time to recover after competing at Monte -Carlo and Barcelona – back to back.

Once he clears Rome, there’s plenty of time to recuperate, unless there’s some major problem, for Madrid and Roland Garros.

For rock people, Barcelona to Nadal is what Basel is to Federer. While Basel doesn’t fall precariously in the middle of a schedule that can potentially upset a Slam win, Barcelona has all kinds of spears attached to it.

Barcelona has already caused trouble for Nadal in the past. Both losses to Federer and Ferrero on clay could be attributed to the stupidity of adding Barcelona to an already bursting at the seams schedule.

All the more so given what all is at stake this year. Although Nadal so far has been able to recover quickly enough to not let it bother him at Roland Garros, why open yourself to such high risk for such measly reward?

Given the two dogs nipping at his heels, who BTW are NOT playing Barcelona, this strategy should have been altered this time. Or only a loss at Roland Garros will drive the point home now?

With Federer now 4000 points off the mark and Murray to still pick up speed on clay, No. 1 rank argument to substantiate that BS goes out the window.

Ideally, to respect the more than elusive calendar Slam, the schedule this year should be stripped down to only the essentials to deflect what Nadal’s track record at the second half of the season has been screaming from the rooftops for the past four years.

With loaded with points Queens and Wimbledon to follow immediately, any miscalculation can evaporate the comfortable lead for the top spot in a hurry, engaging the panic mode to derail the swiftly coasting train.

Will Verdasco succeed in achieving what he failed at the AO: Tiring Nadal for the other two dogs to finish the job – at Rome and beyond? Or will Nadal snuff out Verdasco just like he did Federer at Roland Garros to send a message?

Photos.

Nadal the towel stealer.

Reasons Federer may never reclaim the No. 1 rank unlike past greats.

From that article you may have already noticed the following: Total number of times past greats have become No. 1.

McEnroe: 13 times.

Sampras: 11.

Connors: 9.

Lendl: 8.

But more importantly most of the former number ones regained that spot within a month. Federer is at seven already.

There are some fundamental differences in the previous eras and the one we are in today to suggest that Federer may have dropped out for good.

1. These jokers who reclaimed the No. 1 rank so quickly did it largely at the expense of a clown from their own era. Either due to the competition being ‘intensier’ then or Federer’s talent was just superior in his time, the gap in previous ages was not much.

I mean Sampras was fighting Agassi and Connors, Borg and McEnroe were fighting amongst themselves. They just stripped each other of the spot.

2. The age difference of these above clowns was minimal. Federer, in eliminating all threats from his era, may now be about to pay a price for it. To reclaim that spot from a clown five years younger when you are already 28, is a lot tougher than the above scenario.

3. Player size, strength and athleticism has improved exponentially to make even the slightest slowing down on your end – physically, an insurmountable hurdle than in years past.

4. Technology improvements have only accentuated the above physical disparity to the level where it’s just blown out of proportion. The prospect of a 28 year old joker consistently beating a 22 year old to bridge a 7 month 4000 point gap is over for good.

5. Slowing of courts has further eroded a niche players had in the past on a particular surface, to gain points and play catch up. You think Wimbledon titles and grass helped Sampras in those No. 1 rank points? You bet!!!

Unless BOTH Nadal and Murray falter BIG time for whatever reason(s), Federer’s window to reclaim the top spot is OVER and DONE.