This doesn’t have anything to do with Roger, but as I was flipping through the June 2008 edition of Tennis Magazine, I found some ridiculous claims made by Brad Gilbert of page 22. In “Brad Gilbert’s 3 Reasons Why” column, he writes about how Rafael Nadal won’t win a fourth straight French Open title. Given the results of the French Open, and the fashion in which Rafael won, not dropping a set and steamrolling Roger in the finals, I found this column comical, and as a “expert” on the game, Gilbert should be embarrassed.

Reason number 2:

Less of an air of invincibility-Over the past three years if a player was walking on a clay court against Nadal, he basically already accepted the loss. But at press time Nada hasn’t won a title in eight months. No matter who you are, if you start losing, your opponent will begin to believe they can beat you. They’ll want to get payback even more…

Ok, so Nadal hasn’t been as dominant on other surfaces, but he’s only lost two matches on clay, which is what the French is played on, in the last few years, and that is an amazing accomplishment in itself. I think that air of invincibility on clay is still there given his run on clay before the French this year. They don’t call Rafael “The King of Clay” for kicks; there’s a very good reason.

My motive for writing this post is that I recently read an article, “Viewpoint: Too much talk, too many talkers” on Tennis.com, and I found that Gilbert’s opinion fits into what James Martin wrote about. Also, I just don’t like Brad, and my ears are grateful that he left ESPN; I found it nauseating to have to constantly listen to his verbal diarrhea during Grand Slam coverage. Please, feel free to share your thoughts.