If Rafael Nadal wins at Roland Garros, the temple of clay, for the first time he will look down on Roger Federer in the number of Grand Slam conquered. That will be the great history of the Parisian tournament, one more for Álex Corretja (Barcelona, 1974), who will act as a commentator for Eurosport, the channel that exclusively broadcasts the tournament, and which analyzes the moment of Nadal, his rivals and the pressure that will have in the tournament that can crown him as the best in history.
QUESTION: How do you see Roland Garros?
ANSWER: I see a tournament where Rafa, on his own merits, comes back as the top favorite. I think Djokovic has improved his level on gravel a lot and he will arrive better prepared than last Roland Garros. Thiem will need to pick up the rhythm of the competition, because he arrives very tight, although he has experience and it will be difficult for someone from the top not to eliminate him soon. It will depend on the draw, who crosses Tsitsipas in the quarterfinals, for example. I see a very tense tournament.
Leaving the usual names, Djokovic or Thiem, who can give Nadal war?
Casper Ruud, Jannik Sinner, Matteo Berrettini … They are tough players in the early rounds. Schwartzman himself, even if he’s not having a good year. Christian Garín, who is doing well. Let’s see how Pablo Carreño and Roberto Bautista arrive. Lorenzo Sonego is hitting him pretty hard. Federico Delbonis, no one is going to talk about him, but he’s doing good weeks. Those can be difficult and you don’t want to cross them.
Federer returns. To play what role?
He wants the pace necessary to get to grass well. Anything to add three or four games will be welcome. I don’t think his goal is to win the tournament, as much as one might think that Federer always goes to tournaments to win. It is clear that a legend like him always thinks about winning, but inside he knows that the goal is to shoot and finish as well as possible for grass.
If Nadal wins, will it be definitive that he is above the Swiss?
It is a golden opportunity for Nadal, because they are tied and his favorite Grand Slam arrives, where he has won the most times, where his rivals do him the least damage. For Rafa it would be a very important hit on the table. His chances of winning another Grand Slam are higher than Federer’s. It is important for him to achieve it as soon as possible, not for nothing, but in the end I think that Roland Garros is where he has the best chance of achieving it.
It seems surreal, but can it put you under pressure to know that the record is close at hand?
There is no doubt that he has it in his head, but he also had it in his mind when he had to add the tenth Roland Garros, when he had to tie Federer, when he was number one in the Davis Cup and had the whole country on his back, when he has won the Olympic gold … He has managed it so well so many times that I do not think it will be an added fact. Can you put a little more stress on you? It may be, but I don’t think it will be decisive.
How does Djokovic arrive? Is it a good decision to play a tournament the week before?
For that you have to be within the team. It is striking because it is not the custom, but he has not played much since Australia. Being in Paris a week before, training and on those courts causes him wear and tear and instead being at home playing a game and picking up pace seems better to him.
Is it necessary to get excited about Alcaraz?
With Alcaraz we have a tremendous illusion because he is making his way. It is good to get excited about the players. It is positive to have people who motivate you, who can keep moving forward. Another thing is to be compared with one or the other. I think that does not interest him or anyone. He is a player with a great future ahead of him.
Mats Wilander took a position the other day against the use of automatic systems in tennis, which would replace the linesmen. What is your opinion?
I like the technology on the track. Beyond being sorry for the human factor, if I get rid of romanticism, I think that everything I can do is fairer and that the referees are not wrong … It is absurd not to use a technology that is proven to be 100% effective. I’ve always thought that I liked it when the chair umpire came down and looked at the mark and such, but you realize that there are many linesmen who make mistakes, not because they are bad, but because the mark is very difficult to see. I think technology is going to prevail.
.
