Who is No. 1?

The Wimbledon men's and women's singles finals were both sequels to already well-publicized rivalries, making the weekend a must-see for tennis fans and a must-win for the players involved. Though neither of my favorites won (actually, they pretty much choked under the pressure), the finals raised (and answered) one nagging question that has plagued each side of the tour: Who deserves to be No. 1?\nIn the women's final Saturday, former No. 1 Justine Henin-Hardenne faced current No. 1 Amelie Mauresmo in a rematch of their controversial Australian Open final earlier this year. At the Aussie, Henin-Hardenne retired because of a mysterious illness after losing the first set, thus taking the glory away from her opponent's first Slam title. At Wimbledon, Henin-Hardenne was trying to complete her own Career Slam after tearing through to the final round of the only Grand Slam she has not won. (She also knocked out current No. 2 Kim Clijsters in the process.) Mauresmo felt she had to beat Henin-Hardenne to prove she could beat the former best in the world and validate her No. 1 ranking. Mauresmo struggled from being down a set to mentally and physically wear down her opponent 2-6, 6-3, 6-4. \nRanking validated -- for now. The usually tough-as-nails Henin-Hardenne looked like she went on a mental vacation for the last part of the match, so maybe it just wasn't her day. (Translation: She choked, which I, along with other fans and the annoying NBC commentators, found quite odd.) In any case, this rivalry -- and potential battle for the No. 1 spot -- will no doubt be something to watch again at the U.S. Open.\nUnfortunately, Rafael Nadal, current No. 1 Roger Federer's archrival, met with the same fate, though he choked at the beginning of the match. But Federer's path to the trophy was not pleasant, to say the least, as Nadal stretched the match to four sets and fought Federer's forehand till the end. \nThe fact that Nadal, an expert clay-courter, adjusted so well (and so quickly) to the grass and got to the Wimbledon final on only his third appearance at the tournament surprised fans (and a haughty Federer, who admitted his shock after the final). In fact, his run to the final only solidified his dominance in the men's game even though he eventually lost, which was probably the opposite of what Federer wanted to happen. \nFor almost three years, Federer unquestionably dominated the men's tennis world, making seemingly capable opponents look like amateurs with each swing of his racket. Now that Nadal has come along and put a stop to his domination (even after the Wimbledon final, Nadal leads their meetings 6-2 and Federer's four losses this year have all been to Nadal), Federer seems to say "I hate this kid" with every swing of his racket. And for once, in Sue Barker's on-court interview with the champ after the final, her questions weren't swirling around Federer's performance, but mainly focused on Nadal's skills and the future of their rivalry. This obviously irritated Federer, who's used to hearing nothing but compliments and awe about his own game.\nIn fact, a lot of the hype surrounding this match wasn't due to the records that could be broken (Federer won his fourth consecutive Wimbledon, thus landing him amongst tennis greats, like Pete Sampras, who accomplished the same feat), but instead it was fueled by the undeniable fact that perhaps Federer no longer deserves his No. 1 ranking because of Nadal's frequent dominance over him and many other players. \nAnd this got me thinking. Could Nadal be better on grass than Federer is on clay, thus making him the more complete player? Inspired by this thought, I decided to do some digging on the ATP Web site and uncovered some interesting statistics. \nThough Federer has played almost three times as many Wimbledon tournaments as Nadal, he has had three first-round exits in contrast to Nadal's zero. That's right, a guy who grew up on clay has never lost in the first round of Wimbledon. In fact, he made it to the third round on his first try and beat some notable opponents, including Mario Ancic, in the process. And this year, he made it to the quarterfinals at the Queen's Club warm-up tournament (also on grass) before making it to the Wimbledon final.\nIn his eight tries at the French Open, Federer's play has been slightly streaky. His varied success includes three first-round losses (not consecutively), a third round loss, a quarterfinal loss and semi-final and final losses to Nadal. Nadal won the French on his first try and this year defended his title in his second appearance. \nSo, I would like to posit that after all the skeptics poo-pooed Nadal's dream of winning Wimbledon, he has proven that he can do it, and that he might be more likely to win a Wimbledon title than Federer is to win a French. \nAs for the upcoming U.S. Open, I say Nadal has the better chance, even if he does encounter Federer again. After all, he does hold a 2-1 hard court record against Federer, so that means -- to my personal delight -- he might be derailing the "Federer Express" once again.