Difference between Hedge Fund & Private Equity

By Matthew Lynn

What's the difference between a hedge fund and a private-equity fund?

Easy. One speculates in bonds, stocks, currencies and commodities, using leverage and derivatives, while the other uses its own capital and borrowed money to buy companies, improve them, and then sell them on.

Well, not so fast. The evidence suggests that hedge funds and private-equity funds, the two hottest growth sectors of the financial universe for the past five years, are converging.

What seems to be emerging is a new type of alternative investment fund that shrugs aside traditional ideas of risk and seeks the highest returns any way it can.

Last week at a conference in Frankfurt, David Rubenstein, a co-founder of Carlyle Group, the world's third-biggest buyout firm, said private-equity and hedge funds may eventually converge. "Funds may be created that have the combined characteristics of private equity and hedge funds," Rubenstein said.

Carlyle, based in Washington, estimates that there are 9,000 hedge funds with investments worth about $1 trillion, while 3,000 private-equity funds have $150 billion in assets worldwide.

There is certainly no shortage of evidence of the two types of fund treading on each other's turf.

First, Carlyle itself has just announced plans to launch two hedge funds later this year. And New York-based Blackstone Group LP, which manages the world's biggest buyout fund, has already set up a hedge-fund unit, which oversees about $9 billion in assets. Meanwhile, Carl Icahn, a legendary Wall Street raider, is launching his own hedge fund.

$3.25 Billion Offer

Next, hedge funds are now acting more like buyout firms.

For example, Circuit City Stores Inc., the No. 2 electronics retailer, last month received a $3.25 billion takeover offer from Boston-based Highfields Capital Management LP, which manages hedge funds. Likewise, Beverly Enterprises Inc., a nursing-home chain, last month rejected a bid worth $1.41 billion from an investor group that included hedge fund Appaloosa Management LP.

Buying out whole companies because you think they are undervalued? That's the kind of work that used to be done by private-equity firms.

So how real is the convergence story?

Traditionally, hedge funds and private-equity firms have been seen as deadly rivals. They compete in two main ways.

They joust for talent. Any bright 20-something in the financial markets who wants to make a lot of money quickly (and that covers maybe 99 percent of them) faces a simple choice: work in hedge funds or in private equity. One of the tasks for both industries is to bring those people with their ideas on board.

'Alternative Investments'

And they compete for money. Most mainstream investors put the bulk of their capital into equities and bonds. They have a small amount allocated to a box marked "alternative investments" for which they are willing to accept higher risk for bigger returns. Both the hedge-fund and private-equity managers are chasing that same pool of footloose capital.

Yet the rivalry is rather like one of those fiercely contested local derbies between football teams from the same town. The competition is intense precisely because they are, in reality, playing on the same turf.

The two types of fund are now morphing into one another. Both have always, at root, been about the same thing: using financial engineering intelligently in the hope of generating returns higher than anything available from mainstream investments. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. The plan is much the same.

20 Percent Fees

In time, hedge funds and private-equity firms may end up being the same thing. Some already are. Last month, the Financial Times reported that New York-based private-equity firm AEA Investors LLC plans to merge with Aetos Capital LLC, a real-estate and hedge-fund firm.

One of the key features of hedge funds is that they don't accept any artificial boundaries on their investments. If they see a profit, they pursue it. A hedge fund won't stop and say, "No, we can't do this because, even though it might make us some big bucks, that's not what hedge funds do." That would go against all their best instincts.

Meanwhile, for the private-equity guys, a hedge fund has a more flexible financial structure and more freedom in the kind of investments it makes. And it generates higher fees, which are typically 20 percent of any gains made. (Not that the private- equity firms were ever slouches at paying themselves.)

Three Trends

That's why we should expect to see three trends in the year ahead: more mergers between hedge and private-equity funds; more private-equity firms launching hedge funds; and more hedge funds acting like buyout funds. The result? A new breed of alternative investment, probably with the structure of a hedge fund, yet looks more like a buyout fund.

What's the risk profile of Mega-Hedge-Buyouts LLP? Don't even ask. No doubt, some regulators are already chewing their fingernails at the thought of the havoc that might be wreaked if one of them goes wrong.

Still, it will be a fun outfit to work for. And along the way a lot of smart people will make a lot of money.

Hoping for a Soul Mate

By Steve Watters

“Nothing has produced more unhappiness than the concept of a soul mate.”

That’s the opinion of Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman in the March 2004 issue of Psychology Today. For the article “Great Expectations,” Polly Shulman interviewed Pittman and several other marriage experts who are concerned that the growing expectation for a perfect match is frustrating singles needlessly and threatening their chances of a satisfying marriage.

If you’re still single, do you think that when you marry, your spouse should be your soul mate first and foremost? And if so, do you believe there is a soul mate out there somewhere waiting for you? If you said yes to these questions, then you’re among the majority of never married twentysomethings in America today. When the National Marriage Project asked those questions, 94 percent said yes to the first question and 88 percent said yes to the second.

David Popenoe is the co-director of the National Marriage Project. He worries that today’s young adults may be “reaching even higher in their expectations for marriage.” He points out that the idea of a soul mate isn’t exactly new, but that “the centuries-old ideal of friendship in marriage, or what sociologists call companionate marriage, may be evolving into a more exalted and demanding standard of a spiritualized union of souls” (National Marriage Project, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2001.htm).

In her Psychology Today article, Shulman describes what singles are looking for in a soul mate as “the man or woman who will counter our weaknesses, amplify our strengths and provide the unflagging support and respect that is the essence of a contemporary relationship.”

That’s definitely what I was hoping for. I grew up convinced there was a soul mate out there for me. In fact, I filled journal after journal imagining such a person. Here’s one short piece I wrote lamenting my endless search for my other half:

I hoped for years for perfection.
In silent thoughts I auditioned thousands.
Reading the part for “mate,”
They danced but stumbled,
They sang but mumbled.
They stole my heart, but broke it in the last act.
And I scored them; with my “perfect” pen I scored them.
But I left the auditions lonely,
Sadly aware perfection is only
Made of hope and dream stuff.

The problem was, I had an undefined longing. I wanted someone to complete me, but I didn’t know how much I could ask for. I was like an eight year old at a buffet dying to just pull up a chair, fork in hand and help myself — but suspecting that might not be quite right.

Every time a relationship didn’t work out, I went back to my journal and asked the classic questions: Is there one person out there just for me? Can someone know and love the real me?

In graduate school, I met someone who seemed to answer those questions like never before. As I spent time with a girl named Candice, something clicked. The conversation poured out, flowing endlessly. I could feel my heart in my throat as we talked about things that really mattered to me and I actually got the response I longed for.

Sitting across the table from each other at the First Colony coffee bar in Norfolk, Virginia we dreamed about changing the world together. We talked about generational issues, postmodernism, writing, editing, music and everything we could think of. We saw our talents and interests fitting together in such a way that they seemed to make us more than the sum of our two puzzle pieces. I wanted to be with her all the time. She was attractive, fun and wonderful to do life with.

Despite the incredible connection that grew quickly between us, however, I wasn’t sure about something. “Is she really my soul mate?” I wondered. If she was my soul mate, why did I still find myself looking out of the corner of my eye at other classmates?

In her article, Shulman warns that because few partnerships can live up to the soul mate ideal, “the result is a commitment limbo, in which we care deeply for our partner but keep one stealthy foot out the door of our hearts.”

Reading Shulman, I was relieved to realize I wasn’t the only guy who ever felt that way. It’s embarrassing to admit it now, but at the point in which I finally connected with someone at a soul mate level, I still felt tempted to hold out just in case there was someone a little prettier, a little more exciting, a little more crazy about me.

Female readers may be thinking, “Why are guys like that? Why do they have an appetite for someone better than they could ever deserve?” I think it often comes down to this: Guys (and many girls for that matter) have a hard time sorting out an internal longing for someone with whom they can deeply connect from cultural expectations that often border on fantasy.

Fortunately, before my confusion steered me away from my best shot at a soul mate, a couple with some wisdom came along. The Morkens, one of my professors and his wife, took time to mentor Candice and I. Spending time with them, I began to recognize where my expectations had been distorted.

They assured me that it’s natural to want a deep connection with someone of the opposite sex. That it’s a longing that goes back to the garden. Ever since man had something taken out of him to form woman, it has been natural for him to seek out a woman with whom he can become one flesh. Despite decades of cultural messages downplaying differences between men and women, there are still God-designed distinctions that fit us together like puzzle pieces into one flesh. Furthermore, God gives us unique gifts and callings that make us more suited for some partners than others.

But the Morkens helped me to see how those natural desires for a meaningful connection were clouded by cultural expectations of beauty, excitement and self-actualization.

The Morkens talked about how magazines, TV, movies and music cause us to overvalue external beauty and to look beyond the real people in our lives. Because of careful editing, airbrushing and cosmetic efforts, we actually start to believe there are people out there with no faults or blemishes — that ultimate exterior beauty is not only possible, but the most important element in our desire for a soul mate.

The people we draw close to end up facing an impossible standard and are left hoping they can either make the cut or that some day someone will have grace for their imperfections. I needed to be reminded that my soul mate would, after all, be a real person — that she, just like me, would want to be loved despite imperfections.

The Morkens also reminded me that even a soul mate would not always be exciting. The reality of marriage, they explained, is emotional slow down, inevitable conflicts, painful sacrifice and lots of mundane activities like paying bills, cleaning up after kids and helping each other through sickness.

The other key reminder my mentors gave was that it wasn’t all about me — that my hope for someone to help me self-actualize (achieve my full potential) was grossly one-sided. While I was looking for a soul mate that could identify and meet all my needs, I was ill prepared to love my wife “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). Christ, after all, was the only one capable of meeting my deepest needs. Instead of looking for that fulfillment from a woman, Christ was calling me to accept His love and then pour it out on the person He had led me to.

The best thing the Morkens did was help me see what I had in Candice despite my warped vision of a soul mate. Without being distracted by cultural expectations of perfection, endless excitement and self-actualization, I learned to appreciate the real joy of the connection I had with Candice. I could enjoy her beauty inside and out and see all the things that made us practically and spiritually compatible — or as the Morkens put it, “one of the best matches there ever was.”

Just before I proposed to Candice, I wrote her a poem called “Love Feast.” In it I described how my appetite for a deep meaningful connection in marriage had been ruined by the “fast food” of cultural soul mate expectations. It’s my hope that at least one guy out there reading this (even if it’s at the request of his girlfriend) will take a closer look at his desires for a soul mate so that he can see more clearly what he already has. Like I found, he may see that the lure of fast food can keep us from enjoying the truly gourmet.

I used to feast on simple fare
Tame, light spice … just heavy garnish.
Often I’d add a cup of sugar
But it seldom covered the bitter aftertaste.
It was hard to break old patterns,
Harder still to try new things.
But you were persistent and confident
Baby steps, baby bites and sips.
“Try this,” you offered often —
A great chef with the patience of Job.
“Too hot,” I’d say, “too spicy” I’d add
As I kept one eye open for a fast and easy meal.

But then the old became bland
While you served up freshness — alive with flavor.
Sweet but not sticky, bold but not bitter.
Fulfilling my appetite, you restored my strength.
Now the appetizers have led to the feast,
Where you’ve prepared an overflowing table before me
Flavors I never expected — aromas that overwhelm
And I long to sit at your table all the days of my life.

Believing in the Dream of Marriage

By Kara Schwab

When I was about 10 years old, I used to dream about being married. I had it all figured out. I would get married when I turned 24. I would have four children — two boys, two girls. Of course, some days, that number would change, depending on the scientific experiment I used to look into the future. For instance, every time I ate an apple, I’d count how many times I could twist the stem around before it broke off. Whatever number I counted to would equal the number of children I’d have. Sure I got a little nervous on the days when I counted to, say 15 or 16 ... but I had faith that it would all work out.

Of course, I also dreamed my husband would sweep me off my feet. (And I’m talking he would physically lift me off the ground and twirl me around on a daily basis, because he would be so manly and burly and strong.) We would sing songs by the fireplace every night after dinner — after we ate our chocolate cake — and then dance and dance and dance ourselves silly. This would happen every night until we both went to heaven.

When I was young I knew this would happen, just like I dreamed. It doesn’t hurt to dream, right?

Oh, the confidence of our youth
By age 23, I finally had my first serious boyfriend. He loved God, and liked me a lot. But after several months of dating, I noticed that his head seemed a little small for his body. This realization kept me up at night. I also discerned that his fingernails were a bit too long — even when he cut them — and that disturbed me. Not to mention, he was skinny, so I was pretty sure he couldn’t lift me up, let alone swing me around.

Needless to say, when I turned 24, I wasn’t married. I wasn’t even dating. I didn’t panic though. Per my agenda, I had a whole year to figure things out. But then suddenly, I turned 25. You might say I began to panic. Just ever so slightly.

By this time, I had already been a bridesmaid in approximately 143 weddings — or at least it seemed like that many. These were weddings of friends and classmates from my small Christian college who met their future mates within the first six minutes of freshmen orientation. Was I in the bathroom or something? Because I totally missed that window.

And then I turned 26. Gulp, then 27. And I started to wonder, did God forget about me? I started consuming several pints of ice cream on a weekly basis. Then I remembered something one of my professors said during a class discussion about love. He told us about a woman he met in college. He described her as amazing — exactly what he was looking for. They dated for a while and his love for her grew. He thought she was the perfect woman for him. Then she dumped him. His friends told him not to worry — that God had someone better for him. But he said he was struck with the thought, deep in his heart, that perhaps God had “someone” better for him to be.

There I was, 27 years old, wondering was I the “best” I could be? So, I started to pray. I prayed like never before, that the Lord would prepare my heart for marriage and mold me more fully to His image. Months passed. More pints of ice cream were consumed. And I began to question what really was the will of God for my life regarding marriage. Did He want me to be married? Was this just my hopeful longing — or something He truly desired for me? So I prayed earnestly that He would give me the desires of my heart — not make what I desired magically happen — but that He would place in my heart the very desires He wanted me to have. I prayed that if my dream to be married wasn’t His will for me, He would take that desire away.

Trusting God for your future spouse
Well, the desire to be married did not go away. I decided to choose to find completeness in Christ as a single person. I say “choose” because I knew that for me, this would have to be a decision of the will — at least initially. But, at the same time, I also decided to trust God that someday, I would get married. I began to feel peace as a single person. Yes, I wanted to be married. I even felt ready to be married. But I hadn’t bought a pint of ice cream in months. I was enjoying my current life and felt amazing trust in God’s timing.

I decided to use that time in my life to prepare for marriage. I prayed tirelessly for my future husband, for God to make him ready. I read books on marriage. I sought out married couples I admired and asked them a million questions about marriage: What did they love most about it? What did they find most difficult? What advice could they give me to prepare for it?

I realize this way of thinking is slightly counter cultural. It’s common to hear, “Just be happy. If you’re not married, maybe it’s not meant to be. Get on with your life.” But as a Christian, if you feel called to marriage — if you truly believe God Himself has placed the desire in your heart to be married, then why not actively prepare for it? Why not trust Him that it will happen?

It happened to me. When I turned 28, I met a man and we fell in love. He wasn’t perfect (although his head was a perfect size), and months and months and many, many more months later, he eventually discovered I wasn’t perfect either … but through time spent together and much prayer, we realized we were perfect for each other. We were married shortly after I turned 30. God answered my prayers. It wasn’t the timetable I envisioned as a young girl, but it was the right timing.

Whether married or single, living for Christ is the goal
Marriage should not be the ultimate goal of the Christian life. I do feel blessed that I’m married and experiencing unconditional love from a man. And honestly, I can even appreciate the struggles that cause intense growth … on a good day, anyway. But we're not going to stand before Christ someday as Mrs. or Mr. So and So. We’re going to stand before Him alone. And we’ll be accountable for the kind of person we are here on earth, whether single or married.

If you are single, you’re not of lesser value as a person. God's plan will take each of us down different paths, paths to be celebrated. The key is to submit your will to the Lord’s, because living a life that is glorifying to God isn’t about getting what you want. It’s about conforming to what God wants. And that’s where praying — and I mean really praying — about and discerning God’s will for your life regarding marriage becomes critical. If you do feel called to marriage, shouldn’t we see God as big enough to make it happen? It may not be your timetable, but if He put that desire in your heart, is He not worthy of your trust?

Of course, not everyone is called to marriage. I have the utmost admiration for my single friends who are able to minister to others to an extent that wouldn’t be possible if they were married. I consider them heroes in the body of Christ. And not every single person who wants to be married feels unsatisfied or lonely. But the truth is, many do.

To these individuals I say, be encouraged — God has not forgotten about you. “[He] is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit” (Psalm 34:18). Pray that God would be the Author of your dreams. If you believe God has called you to marriage, hold fast to that dream. “God sets the lonely in families (Psalm 68:6a). Use this time now to prepare yourself for marriage. Pray for God to make you — and your spouse-to-be — ready. You can trust God for your future. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

And remember, you can find peace and joy in Christ right now knowing that you are — and will always be — His bride.

With E2 the Whole Day

Today, went to pick up E2 at her house.

Initially, we went to Purple Cane Restaurant at Petaling Street but it was crowded at that time. Decided to go Bangsar area instead and ended up at La Bodega Lounge on E2's suggestion.

We had a good chat over various of topics. E2 was pretty. She has a beautiful hairdo, cutting short now. Can't take my eyes off her.

Later that night, we went to a live band performance. The vocal of the singers were fantastic and we had a great time enjoying their performance.

I will always remember this day. :)

Roger Federer post Wimbledon - What's next?

Well, Roger Federer may have lost the 2008 Wimbledon final to Rafael Nadal but make no mistakes, that was by the slightest of margin. This tells us that Federer is still the man to beat in the upcoming Beijing Olympics which for the past years, many professional players had shunned it -- so that they have more time to prepare the U.S. Open, normally held after the Olympics.

Not this time.

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have both confirmed their participation in the Beijing Olympics, which is a major boost for the organizer. Federer has a bit of advantages on the hard court surface judging from past history. But the gap is closing fast now by the way Nadal adjusted his game to the fastest court on Grand Slams tournament in grass court at Wimbledon. Beijing Olympics will use the same type of hard court surface like in U.S. Open called DecoTurf which tends to bounce faster and lower than any other hard court surface. This gives Federer the edge over Nadal. Besides, Nadal has yet to prove he has what it takes to be a major force to be reckoned with on the hard court. Not yet at this moment. He has some points to prove. Certainly not Federer to prove.

Roger Federer is a wounded tiger now. He is licking his wound at this very moment and will ponder his revenge over Nadal in the upcoming Olympics and U.S. Open. Federer certainly play better when he can come to the terms that he is no longer the world No.1 tennis player at this moment, no matter what the ATP ranking tells you. Ok, maybe he is still the world No.1 tennis player, but he is certainly not when playing against Nadal. He needs to adjust his game when facing Nadal just like Nadal adjusted his game on the grass court. Simply, Federer cannot play like he tends to play against other tennis players other than Nadal. Nadal's game is based on his physical approach to the game. His powerful ground strokes with heavy topspin is his weapon. Federer has to do more and perhaps do something differently than exchanging topspin ground strokes with Nadal. Federer has to admit that he is worse than Nadal in this department. Pride and ego will not save the day for Roger Federer.

Perhaps, Roger Federer should use more slice and underspin than topspin with Nadal when dealing with Nadal service game. Then, with his ever reliable service aces, or the usual one-two punch of serving out-wide first, then kill the ball with the short return from Nadal. This has to be his weapon against Nadal. Maybe he also has to mix up his choice of shots a little bit like playing serve and volley more to put Nadal off his comfort zone at the baseline.

The only real problem Federer has now when facing Nadal is his self-belief and confidence. It's the mental fortitude. Not his skills. His inferiority complex kinda creeping in at crucial stages in the game like dealing with breakpoints over his opponent. Just look at the stats of breakpoints conversion ratio at the Wimbledon final -- 1 out of 13 breakpoints won. This is not a good sign for a champion like him. When was the last time we see Roger Federer plays with such gloomy look on his face? Perhaps, in the French Open finals and the last concluded Wimbledon final. So, where is the Roger Federer brimming with confident-look on his face when he defeated Andy Roddick with such grace and elegant shots in the Wimbledon finals three to four years back?

Time will tell.

Nadal has improved virtually every aspect of his game‏

By Greg Garber, ESPN.com

WIMBLEDON, England -- Toni Nadal, trudging up the steps from the players' locker room, forced a smile and extended his hand. Twilight was gathering outside at the All England Club and silver stubble was creeping through his weather-beaten face.

After a lengthy rain delay on Wednesday, his nephew and protégé (since the age of four) had utterly embarrassed the remaining British hope, Andy Murray. While Murray seemed baffled -- he called Rafael Nadal's forehand "ridiculous" -- Uncle Toni was wearily but thoroughly happy.

Rafa first came to Wimbledon in 2002 and made it all the way to the semifinals of the junior tournament. A year later, he reached the third round of the main draw at the age of 17. In the intervening five years, he has become the second-best grass-court player in the professional game.

The straight-sets match against Murray, accomplished in less than two hours, was his best grass match ever, Rafa acknowledged.

"Many people say, 'Rafael, his grass game has problems,'" Toni said. "They don't remember he is only 22 years old. Is normal to improve still at this age.

"Give him time."

On Sunday, many here have come to believe, that time will arrive. There is a growing sentiment that Rafael Nadal will end Roger Federer's run of consecutive Wimbledon titles at five.

"Can Nadal beat Federer?" said U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe, laughing. "The question is can Federer beat him? Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think he can beat Nadal."

For a child of clay, born on the Spanish island of Mallorca, grass is a truly foreign surface. While the bounces on clay are generally generous and uniform, the ball skids on grass and stays low. Power is rewarded far more often on grass than on clay. Nadal's prototypical clay-court game -- based on consistent power, defense and attrition -- doesn't necessarily play well on grass.

Just as Federer has struggled to adapt his game to clay -- he's lost to Nadal the past four years at Roland Garros, the past three in the final -- Nadal hasn't quite been able to close the gap on Federer's favored surface, losing in the Wimbledon final the past two years.

Much was made of Federer's desire to beat Nadal in Paris, his passion to prove he is the master of all surfaces. But when Federer won just four games in the final, you got the impression that Nadal, if he's healthy, will never lose a final there to the Swiss No. 1. For the record, he has won 115 of his past 117 matches on clay.

Contrast that with last year's Wimbledon final, when Nadal very nearly beat Federer, losing 7-6 (7), 4-6, 7-6 (3), 2-6, 6-2.

When Nadal won the Wimbledon warm-up tournament, The Artois Championships at Queen's Club, it was the first time in 36 years that a Spanish player won a grass-court tournament. It has been 42 years since Manuel Santana won here at Wimbledon.

"Unlike other Spanish players, he has always believed he can win at Wimbledon," Santana told the Times of London.

Watching Nadal, Santana said, "is like turning on an electric light."

Said John McEnroe, a BBC commentator, "A couple of years ago everybody was asking whether he could transition to winning here on grass. He's come here and improved virtually every aspect of his game -- his serve, court positioning, his backhand and his forehand."

As a left-hander, Nadal enjoys a distinct advantage over his right-handed peers. Everything comes at you from an unaccustomed angle, which only makes Nadal's shots even more effective.

If Nadal's game is passive-aggressive on clay, it has evolved into aggressive-aggressive on grass.

Nadal has grown perceptibly stronger over the past several years, to the point that his biceps have become back-page news among the London tabloids. The muscle manifests itself in raw power. After he was vanquished, Murray called Nadal's ball the heaviest in tennis.

"Yup," Murray said. "He just swings his arm so hard at the ball. When you watch Federer play it looks like he's sort of effortless power. When you see Nadal, how fast he moves the racket through the air, and the amount of spin and speed he generates -- his forehand is the heaviest shot in tennis.

"The ball kind of jumps at a tough angle. It's hard to step into the court and just go for it."

Murray probably doesn't know it, but there is scientific evidence to back this up. Recently, the International Tennis Federation commissioned a study to learn how many times a tennis ball spins on average. While most groundstrokes register in the vicinity of 2,500 rotations, Nadal's ball checks in between 4,000 and 5,000.

On clay, where Nadal's power is blunted, he is content to loop the ball more and outlast opponents. On grass, he has learned to flatten out his shots, and the result is a skidding, deeper ball.

"He's taking the ball early," said Murray. "He's hitting it lower over the net, and playing aggressive from the very first shot, which I don't think he did necessarily in the past."

More depth on groundstrokes means it's easier to play defense. At Roland Garros, Nadal typically plays three feet to six feet behind the baseline. At Wimbledon, Hawk-Eye technology reveals that Nadal has crept to within a foot of the baseline, and as many as one-fourth of his shots are hit from inside it.

"That is the most important thing," said his uncle Toni. "Court position. Before, because he always practiced on clay courts, he was comfortable way behind the baseline. Now, he …"

Coach Nadal, struggling for an English explanation, took the writer's pen and drew two diagrams. On clay, it was two arrows, pointing left and right, parallel to and behind the baseline, representing Rafa's defensive track. At Wimbledon, Toni said, the vectors form a "V" at the baseline and indicate Rafa's forward movement.

The biggest area of improvement for Nadal has come on his serve.

In 2003, the average speed of his first serve was a paltry 99 mph, according to IBM statistics. From '05 to '07, he kicked it up to 104 and 105 mph. Through five matches here, he's crushing the ball, averaging 115 mph. Against Murray, his serve brought him all kinds of free points.

And yet, despite the greater degree of difficulty -- and less margin for error -- Nadal's first-serve percentage is 70 -- better than any player in the semifinals, including Federer.

"At Roland Garros he's just pops it in because there's no free points on clay," observed Darren Cahill, the former coach of Andre Agassi and Lleyton Hewitt. "At Wimbledon, he's rewarded for a harder serve. He's hitting his serve harder than he used to, and he's hitting it harder here."

And Nadal isn't just throwing fastballs. He's hitting the black with off-speed stuff, too.

"On clay, 90 percent of the time, he serves it straight into the backhand," said Patrick McEnroe, an ESPN analyst. "Here, he's moving it around to all four corners of the [service] box and both sides of the body."

Nadal is actually serving and volleying, most often on big points, and occasionally, when he serves it out wide, he'll slip into the net when he sees the guy going for a slice.

In the return game, he has become bolder. On clay, he'll return from the baseline or just beyond. In the Queen's final against Novak Djokovic, Nadal usually stood between one and two feet inside the baseline.

Nadal's improved backhand slice has brought another important dimension to his game.

Only one man has managed to win both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same summer in the past 38 years. Nadal has a chance to join Bjorn Borg, who did it three years running, in that exclusive club.

A victory could well lead to a change in the 1-2 world order that has ruled tennis for nearly three years. A Nadal win over Federer in the final would leave Nadal with 6,055 points -- just 545 points behind Federer. It would place him in great position to catch Federer as the year unfolds.

If Nadal can break through, Wimbledon would no longer be the exclusive game reserve for Federer. It would set into motion an intriguing swing of the pendulum, for Nadal is just entering the period when great players win the bulk of their Grand Slams -- the sweet spot, if you will.

Federer won 10 of his 12 Grand Slam singles titles between the ages of 22 and 25, and Pete Sampras won eight of his 14 in that same age span. Nadal turned 22 last month in Paris, meaning he essentially has four years to collect some serious hardware. Winning Wimbledon would give him five career Slams and mark him as the favorite for Wimbledon as well as Roland Garros every year.

If he ever concentrates on adapting his game to hard courts, watch out in Melbourne and New York.

Toni Nadal doesn't understand why people have been impatient with Nadal's progression on grass. He correctly points out that Nadal, at 17, was younger than many junior players when he played his first main-draw match here. Juniors face a steep learning curve, the coach reasoned, but because Rafa is under such harsh scrutiny he didn't get the proper time to breathe.

"Rafael learns every year -- because he wants to learn," Toni said. "He wants to be better, and so he has worked hard to do that. I think he can get better."

Captain Cardie's gameplan unravels

Dejected Roger Federer covers his face after the match


Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal before the epic thriller unfolds

By Alix Ramsay

As the light faded over Centre Court, an era faded with it. Roger Federer's grasp on the Championships was finally loosened by Rafael Nadal in a final that will be remembered forever by all who saw it.

It took 4hrs 48 mins for Nadal to make his mark in the All England Club history books but finally, stunningly, the Spaniard beat the man in the cardigan 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7.

Every superhero, however big, however strong, has his Achilles heel and Captain Cardie’s is Nadal. The man who, for five years, has ruled Wimbledon with a forehand of steel, now seems unable to counter the force of the muscular Majorcan.

Against anyone else, Federer waves his racquet like a wand and can turn any situation to his own advantage. But against Nadal, Captain Cardie's cable stitch gets snagged on the Majorcan's secret crochet hook, his defences unravel and the superhero is rendered mortal.

Grand Slam finals are often strange affairs – two tense men in search of greatness often fail to produce magnificent tennis, especially not in the early stages of the encounter. But when Federer and Nadal stand eyeball to eyeball over a major piece silverware, the result is stupendous.

From the very first point, both men bring the best out of each other – they have to because both know that the bloke on the other side of the net is capable of tearing him to shreds. And to see them in action is to realise just how far above the rest of the pack they stand. Other men may have a good day and catch one of the top two off guard, they may hit a bit of a purple patch one afternoon, but no one belongs in the same league as Captain Cardie and Muscleman.

So evenly matched are the pair that they are looking for any, miniscule, advantage to give them an edge. Nadal is a superstitious soul who likes to walk on court second, who likes to sit closest to the Royal Box to be nearer his support team and who hates to have his routine disturbed. So Federer ushered him on court first (“No, no, after you, Raf…”) and marched purposefully towards Nadal’s favourite seat.

Getting his retaliation in first, Nadal, who shares the same clothing sponsor as his foe, selected a cream coloured warm-up top to top off his otherwise pristine white outfit. It may not have been made of cashmere and it may not have had his own specially designed logo emblazoned on the front, but it made the point – I'm as good as you, amigo, and don’t you forget it.

The nagging worry for Federer is that Nadal is actually better than he is, and that thought has gnawed away at him for the past couple of years. It is all very well for the Spaniard to dominate the clay courts of Roland Garros but SW19 is Roger’s patch and he is none too keen on trespassers. But Nadal, playing in his third final, was no longer an outsider straying into someone else’s territory. He had looked around the property, decided he liked it and put in an offer for the title deeds.

At times, the tennis was remarkable. Federer’s forehand was like a heat-seeking missile, he was trying to attack the net, he was looking smooth. But whenever the match moved to an important point, out came Nadal’s secret crochet hook and Captain Cardie was undone.

For 2hrs 15 mins they slugged it out before the rain sent them running for cover. In that time Federer held 12 break points and converted just one of them. The longer it went on, the less likely he looked to take his chances, tapping his backhand lamely into the net time and again. Creating the break point chance seemed easy – such things are for superheroes – but turning it into an advantage was nigh on impossible.

And all the while Nadal was relentless, grinding on to a two-set lead and watching Federer fluff six break points in the third set until, with the Swiss leading 5-4, the rains came.

Only once before has anyone managed to put Federer on the back foot in the final – and that was four years ago. Then Andy Roddick snatched the opening set against the champion and was running him ragged until a rain delay gave Federer time to think and he came back out with all guns blazing.

History has a strange habit of repeating itself and back at work again 80 minutes later, Federer was back to his best. Perhaps it was the chance to put the magic cardie on again that did it, but having rediscovered his serve, he took charge of the third set tie-break and set off towards the fourth set.

This was a new Federer; this was the majestic Federer – this was Captain Cardie swooping to save his championship.

Twice Nadal stood two points from the title – in the 10th game and again in the tie-break – and then as the fourth-set tie-break came to the crunch, the Spaniard held two, precious championship points. The superhero in Federer puffed out his chest and grabbed the first back with a service winner and the second with a backhand that rifled down the tramline and landed in the corner. They have nerves of titanium, these superheroes.

And then it rained again.

This time there was no edgy switch in momentum, but another 55 minutes of stunning hitting, lung-bursting running and unbelievable, magnificent, monumental tennis.

As a Federer forehand sailed long, he dropped his serve and as, eight points, later another landed in the net, the Cardigan of Invincibility had passed to Nadal. Captain Cardie's reign was over.

Nadal tops Federer in 5 sets to win Wimbledon

Rafael Nadal holds aloft the trophy


Rafael Nadal with the scoreboard showing time played for the match


Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal at the net

By HOWARD FENDRICH, AP Tennis Writer

WIMBLEDON, England (AP)—Rafael Nadal, grass stains on his white shirt and a Spanish flag tucked under his arm, scampered through the Centre Court stands to celebrate his first Wimbledon title with hugs and handshakes.

Roger Federer sat in his changeover chair, protected from the night’s chill by his custom-made cream cardigan with the gold “RF” on the chest. Alone with his thoughts, alone with the knowledge that he had come so close to becoming the first man since the 1880s to win a sixth consecutive championship at the All England Club.

Two points from victory, the No. 1-ranked Federer couldn’t pull it out, instead succumbing to No. 2 Nadal 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5), 6-7 (8), 9-7 Sunday night in a 4-hour, 48-minute test of wills that was the longest men’s final in Wimbledon history—and quite possibly the greatest.

Even Nadal felt sympathy for Federer.

“I am very happy for me,” Nadal said, “but sorry for him, because he deserved this title, too.”

Through rain, wind and descending darkness, the two greatest players of their generation swapped spectacular shots, until, against a slate sky, Nadal earned the right to fling his racket aside and collapse on his back, champion of the All England Club at last.

“Is impossible to explain what I felt in that moment, no?” Nadal said after accepting the golden trophy that has belonged to Federer since 2003.

The first man since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year, Nadal stopped Federer’s streaks of 40 victories in a row at the All England Club, and a record 65 in a row on grass, thereby stamping his supremacy in their rivalry, no matter what the rankings say.

“Probably my hardest loss, by far,” Federer said. “I mean, it’s not much harder than this right now.”

No man since 1927 had come back to win a Wimbledon final after losing the first two sets, and none had overcome a match point to seize victory since 1948. If anyone could, it figured to be Federer, especially on this particular lawn.

He hadn’t lost a match on grass since 2002, and he hadn’t lost a set during this tournament before Sunday. He also hadn’t faced anyone nearly as talented and indefatigable as Nadal.

“Look, Rafa’s a deserving champion,” Federer said. “He just played fantastically.”

Indeed he did, earning Spain its first Wimbledon men’s title since Manolo Santana won in 1966.

Nadal managed to regroup after blowing a two-set lead, managed to recover after wasting two match points in the fourth-set tiebreaker, managed to hold steady when Federer needed only two points to end the match while ahead 5-4 in the fifth.

He earned his fifth Grand Slam title, but first away from the French Open, by showing fortitude on his serve, saving 12 of 13 break points. He did it by breaking serve four times—twice as many times as Federer lost serve in his previous six matches combined. And Nadal did it by being better from the baseline, winning 24 of 38 points that lasted 10 or more strokes, according to an unofficial AP tally.

“He was rock-solid, the way we know him,” said Federer, who hit 25 aces. “He’s definitely improved his game.”

Borg and Santana watched from the front row of the Royal Box at Centre Court, which next year will have a retractable roof. Perhaps Mother Nature wanted one last chance to leave her mark, delaying Sunday’s start by 35 minutes with rain. Showers again caused a delay of 1 hour, 21 minutes late in the third set, then another of 30 minutes at 2-2, deuce, in the fifth set.

When action resumed at 8:23 p.m., it already was tough to see, and the players traded service holds until 7-7. That’s where Nadal finally broke through, as Federer’s forehand really began to break down. A forehand into the net gave Nadal his fourth break point, and a forehand long conceded the game— the first break of serve by either man since the second set.

Nadal still had to serve out the match, though, and he still had to avoid the sort of nerves Federer noticed when his opponent led 5-2 in the fourth-set tiebreaker.

“I played terrible there,” said Nadal, who double-faulted to 5-3.

Down 6-5 in that tiebreaker, Federer erased a match point with a 127 mph service winner. Down 8-7—again, one point from losing—Federer hit a backhand passing winner.

A forehand winner put Federer ahead 9-8, and when Nadal missed a backhand return, the match was even. Federer jumped and screamed, and the crowd of about 15,000 joined him.

“Rafa keeps you thinking, and that’s what the best players do to each other in the end,” Federer said. “That’s what we both do to each other.”

It was their sixth Grand Slam final, already more than between any other pair of men in the 40-year Open era, and there could be several to follow. Federer is only 26, after all, and Nadal is 22. Federer has led the rankings for a record 231 consecutive weeks, and Nadal has been second for a record 154.

Nadal defeated Federer at the French Open en route to each of his championships there, in the 2005 semifinals and the past three finals, including a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 rout last month that was Federer’s most lopsided loss in 180 career Grand Slam matches.

But the Swiss star kept reminding everyone this week that he has had the upper hand on surfaces other than clay.

Not this time.

Nadal lost to Federer in the 2006 Wimbledon final in four sets, and the 2007 final in five. Although the latter was certainly suspenseful, it featured neither the drama nor the all-around excellence of Sunday’s encounter, which ended at 9:15 p.m., when Federer pushed a forehand into the net on Nadal’s fourth match point.

Federer made clear afterward he was not pleased that play continued despite the low visibility at the end.

“It’s rough on me now, obviously, you know, to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light,” he said.

Said Nadal: “In the last game, I didn’t see nothing.”

Both players figured that if Federer had broken back to 8-8 in the fifth, play would have been suspended until Monday because of darkness.

“It would have been brutal,” Federer said.

It didn’t happen. Nadal came through.

Afterward, the new champion was asked if it was the greatest match he’d ever played. Plenty of others around the grounds, including John McEnroe—whose five-set loss to Borg in 1980 gets many votes—already were calling it the greatest match they’d ever seen.

“I don’t know if it’s the best,” Nadal said.

Then he thought about it for a moment.

“Probably,” he continued. “Probably the best, yes.”