Fernando Verdasco is not a close friend of Roger Federer's but the Swiss might just be amending his Christmas card list after Verdasco did a fine job of running Rafael Nadal into a state of near exhaustion ahead of Federer's meeting with his nemesis in tomorrow morning's Australian Open final.
After last year's Wimbledon final, which Nadal won in five sets, much will be expected of the Melbourne rematch, but even Nadal's legendary reserves of physical and mental energy may not be up to replicating his performance on that memorable evening in July.
He may have survived a record-breaking five hours and 14 minutes in beating Verdasco 6'7, 6'4, 7'6, 6'7, 6'4, the longest match in Australian Open history, but the way Nadal lay, exhausted, on the Plexicushion surface of the Rod Laver Arena afterwards suggests he may still feel heavy-legged and emotionally drained when he faces Federer in what will be their 18th career meeting and their seventh grand slam final.
Nadal has won 12 of those matches, including four in major finals, but the extra day Federer has had to rest could help him restore a little more respectability in the series.
"For sure it's going to be tough," said Nadal, still dripping sweat and looking like a boxer on the wrong side of a dozen rounds. "Roger is resting right so I am going to be a little bit disadvantaged. He is the favourite right now - he has had two days of rest. Always our matches are very tough. Roger is already, in my opinion, the best in history. He is playing for the record of the slams like Pete Sampras. For me it's a lot too - to play the first final in Melbourne is a dream for me."
Federer is, as Nadal mentioned, playing for history, but, then, when is he not? Should he beat the man who usurped him as world No.1, then Federer will equal the record of 14 grand slam titles, set by Pete Sampras in 2002, and would, appropriately enough, surpass Australian Roy Emerson's tally of 13. He looked in staggering form in his comparatively easy semi-final win over Andy Roddick but then, with due respect to the American, he was not up against a rampant Verdasco playing the match of his life.
Nadal's Davis Cup team-mate and good friend also proved to be his equal for almost all of the five sets they played, and though Nadal and Federer showed at Wimbledon they are capable of producing a match for the ages, Nadal's win over Verdasco deserves to last longer in the memory than a couple of days.
"It is sad to play one match like this and lose after five hours," said a remarkably chipper Verdasco afterwards. "But, you know, for the other side, I need to be proud for the tournament I made and the level I played today. I think it was an unbelievable match. We both played unbelievable.
"I think Rafa, I've always said in these matches, five sets, he is the toughest player. And I was there all the time, too. So, you know, for sure I will have this match in my mind all my life."
He is not the only one. The Australian Open has known some long matches in its time - including Boris Becker's 1991 defeat of Omar Camporese, the previous holder of the record, and Roddick's memorable 2003 marathon against Younes El Aynaoui - but few can have matched Nadal v Verdasco for sheer barnstorming quality. Only in the fifth set, when the serving arm which did for Andy Murray in the fourth round began to tire, did Verdasco give Nadal any quarter, and the tennis from both was of the highest quality. It made Verdasco's double fault at match-point down all the more incongruous.
"He deserved to win, too," said Nadal, minutes after climbing over the net to give his compatriot a heartfelt embrace. Federer was probably tucked up in bed by then but, had he been there, he might just have felt like hugging Verdasco, too.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article