On Sunday, Roger Federer lost the Shanghai Masters 1000 final against Andy Murray in straight sets. It's a disconcerting result for Roger, since he looked so impressive at the start of the tournament and seemed to have found the proper balance of determination and fitness. Unquestionably, the Paul Annacone version of Roger Federer is way better than the previous one.

I agree that he seems more determined and offensive as people have claimed, but not as much as he had been this summer. Considering how Roger amazed me in Montréal because he was finally playing an aggressive tennis and was fully taking his chances, this is a step back. This summer he seemed to have found the right path, like Annacone's style was becoming effective. The evidence was in all those chip and charge on opponent's second serve, just like Annacone's old student, Pete Sampras. But then he went back to his old ways in China.

Let's take a step back and look at what Federer did in Shanghai. His match against

Without a doubt the biggest water cooler discussion about Caroline Wozniacki hitting No. 1 in the rankings is that the Danish player has yet to have won a major.

Even more stunning, as Chris wrote Thursday, is that she managed to reach the top spot without having played a Grand Slam final in 2010. Caroline is ahead of Serena Williams despite the fact that the American won the Australian Open and Wimbledon. She is also ahead of Vera Zvonareva, who reached the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals and Kim Clijsters, who just won the U.S. Open. How in the world can the 20-year-old from Denmark manage to become top player in the world despite all these things?

First off, she's the one who played the most tournaments by far among the top-15 players. Just have a look at the following statistics:

Wozniacki played 24 tournaments in 2010 while Venus played 15, Serena played 14, Clijsters played 13, and Henin played 10. 
It is obvious that the WTA ranking system favors quantity instead of quality. It

Most of the time, when a player is up against Rafael Nadal, he looks to me as if there's little strategy. It's almost as if the player knows he won't succeed so he doesn't try as hard. A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. It's like he already knows he's going to lose, is resigned about it and, worst of all, he helps Nadal's best abilities to shine. So even if very few of his opponents seem to be sure about it: Nadal isn't unbeatable. He's still a human being, with strengths and weaknesses. He's capable of a bad day, just like all of us.

Don't get me wrong; I'm fully aware of Nadal's great abilities in the game, of his fighting spirit too, of him being a true champion. But I want to see him confronted with players who are really going to make him struggle. Like Soderling at the French Open in 2009, like Gulbis in Rome this season (even if Nadal won that match) or like a Murray at the Australian Open. There are a lot of tactics to explore against Nadal.

I admit that I admire the

Since he's back on the tour, finally free from any physical issues, Rafael Nadal has won nearly everything that matters this year. Forced to pull out at the Australian Open, when he was playing great, he has now won the three following Grand Slams, which is outstanding. His record this season is evidence of his domination of the tennis world. Like it or not, Federer, Djokovic, Murray or Berdych now have to search a real "anti-Nadal" game plan if they really want to get a chance of winning some Grand Slams in the years to come. If we take into consideration the way he dictates the game and the way he's constantly improving, his reign will only be able to be stopped by injuries or by finding someone who can really play at his level.

It's obvious now that when Rafa is in his best shape, he can't be defeated. For some, the strategy against him means improving again and again and tweaking every aspect of their games to become way better players. Roger Federer, on the other hand, has already

Patrick Mouratoglou is a world-renowned tennis coach who has worked with Marcos Baghdatis and Aravane Rezai. His French tennis academy is considered one of the top in the world. He'll provide commentary for Busted Racquet during the 2010 U.S. Open.

The final Grand Slam of the year has just ended and, as always, nostalgia is coming. The crowd, the energy and the constant noise have been replaced by silence, focus and emptiness. Let's look back on the 2010 U.S. Open:

The two faces of Roger Federer

For the first time since 2004, Roger Federer wasn't among thee finalists, falling in the semis to Novak Djokovic after missing two match points. It's a year now since the level of the Swiss has stopped being top-notch. We were used to way better coming from him. He isn't steady and constant enough during his matches. Yet we were kind of reassured by his summer. He was playing so much better. His matches against Djokovic and Berdych in Toronto brought the "old Roger" back: focused from the

In what is becoming a routine occurance, the U.S. Open men's final has been postponed and will be played Monday. Historically, rain has always played a huge part in tennis, sometimes affecting the result of a match. In Wimbledon, it's nearly part of the tradition and people don't even notice it anymore. In New York on the other hand, it's way more unusual.

Playing now on Monday will have two main consequences. In the first place, both players will get one more day of rest. Before, they were to play the semifinals and final back-to-back. Rafael Nadal rolled in three straight sets, but Novak Djokovic ended up being the winner of a tight fight against Roger Federer. This bonus day will be a real gift for the Serbian in order to recover a bit more. When you think about the physical task it represents to face Nadal, this change of schedule isn't a minor detail. His long semifinal match would have hampered Nole's energy against Nadal, but now that he has an extra 24 hours, it doesn't mean

The die is cast. The U.S. Open final will see Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic fighting for the trophy. This result confims what we've been thinking since the start of the summer.

Djokovic is in great shape. We've seen his level getting better and better, especially in Toronto where his match against Roger Federer was such an intense one and with a very high quality of tennis. After Toronto, he was, for me, the main outsider for the U.S. Open, being more impressive than Andy Murray cause he was looking so fit. Djokovic had prepared for the last Grand Slam of the year in a true champion manner. He lost some weight, not because of a special diet, but because of all the work he had done to get there in full shape. The Serbian is moving with an amazing ease on the court, even better than before. His serve is finally back after months of struggle due to some questionable technical changes. But it's his mindset -- his way of thinking -- his whole game that has improved. He's often dictating

I've always been enthralled by the power of trends in the tennis world. Players tend to follow them, but media and tennis professionals tend to make them absolute truths. It takes something special to break away.

I signed a representation deal with Caroline Wozniacki when she was 10 years old. I've been negotiating contracts for her since she was 13 or 14. At the time, the Williams sisters were at the height of their domination of the tennis world. They had sent Martina Hingis to retirement and everybody was agreeing that power was the wave of the future. If you didn't have it, you weren't getting to No. 1 in the world. And then a little woman called Justine Henin became the top player in the world by showing totally different abilities: speed, diversity of shot-selection and taking the ball early. But even then, there wasn't much interest in the young teenager named Caroline.

"She's too limited and lacks power," they said. "She'll be top 50 because she's a fighter, but nothing more."