It’s fair to say that the Federer playing in Madrid is not the same Federer playing the last few months.  But it’s fair to say that this Ernests Gulbis was not the same that played Roger Federer a mere two weeks ago.

Ah, the journey of Ernests Gulbis.  Two years ago, many touted this man as the next great player.  He had challenged some of the best, but had yet to beat a top ranked player.   A year ago, his game seemed totally rudderless.  He lost matches for silly reasons, mostly due to unstructured practices and the lack of a coach.

Last year, he hired Hernan Gumy and although it’s taken quite a few months, Gulbis is a different man, a more patient man, a player that mixes power with big serves with drop shots.  Gulbis now wins close matches against players he should beat, at least, based on his talent level.

So although Gulbis has played a handful of matches in Rome, including a semifinal loss to Nadal, but even a second win against Feliciano Lopez, these matches were hugely valuable to Gulbis, perhaps none more so than his win against lowly Filippo Volandri.  Gulbis needed a third set tiebreak to claim that match.  So often, a player has a huge breakthrough and collapses in the next match.  Even Federer has done this.  His victory over Pete Sampras at the 2001 Wimbledon was followed by a loss to Tim Henman in the next round.

Still, despite Gulbis’s increased belief in his own play, his smart shots, his versatility, there was a notion that Federer was still on the verge of beating Gulbis back in Rome and did so while playing noticeably poor tennis.  Federer, seemingly out of nowhere, cleaned up his game and played a very clean match against a decidedly dejected Stanislas Wawrinka who had to be embarrassed to make so many errors off slices to his backhand.

Gulbis got off to a good start in the first set breaking Federer early, but the positive news was Roger’s clean hitting.  Except for one loose game, Roger played his serves pretty well, and although he didn’t manage to break, there was a feeling that if he could get a break, he would be in good shape.  Roger showed his clean play throughout the second.  Despite an early hiccup where he lost serve, he would break Gulbis three times in the second set, and take it 6-1, showing the old form that won him the Australian Open.

One key to today’s game play, that is different from even a few years ago, is the importance of rushing the net.  Nadal used to rarely come to net unless he was forced up there, and now he realizes how much easier it is to finish points at the net.  In 2009, Federer talked about going back to fixing his serve and working on his net game.  Though he didn’t use his net game nearly as much in 2009, on the clay, in 2010, he’s coming in more to the net than ever before.

Federer got an early break on Gulbis early in the third set, and seemed to decide that breaking Gulbis again was not worth it, so Gulbis had a few easy holds.  When Gulbis held to 5-4, the rain started to come down.  Gulbis held serve.  At the start of Federer’s serve, a rowdy fan kept yelling out.  Federer decided to serve anyway, and got a big first serve which irritated Gulbis (the fan that made the noise).  Federer had another big serve to go up 30-0, and eventually won the match at 6-4.

One of the most entertaining matches in the US Open in 2009 was a meeting of Rafael Nadal and Gael Monfils.  Monfils was pulverizing the ball and yet Nadal found ways to get his hard shots back time and again.  Monfils stayed competitive for about a set and a half, and then faded as Nadal won the match in straight sets.

It was hopeful that Monfils would be able to give Nadal trouble despite only having one win against the Mallorcan.   Not to be.  Monfils was been pushed left and right and deep, and add to that, he made errors a bit too often.  Monfils was serving a bit predictably, time and again, going to Nadal’s backhand.  In the end, Nadal was too much for Monfils: 6-1, 6-3.

So far, my predictions are 3 for 4.  I felt the hard predictions were Almagro and Melzer, mostly because they had never played each other.  I felt Almagro was a bit younger, a bit higher ranked, and that he would probably win.  I didn’t expect it to be real easy, but it was.

The other hard prediction was Ferrer vs. Murray.  I gave a tiny edge to Murray, but Ferrer is such a tough retriever and made Cilic look like a beginner.  Still, Murray is one of the smarter players on tour, and surely, his team had to think about how best to play Ferrer, if they should meet again.  Still, Ferrer has played great clay court tennis, and only a player the caliber of Nadal (or perhaps Federer) gives Ferrer trouble.

Murray’s shored up two parts of his game that gave him trouble the last time they met.  Murray is serving better, although his percentages would suggest otherwise.  He’s returning better as well.  These two factors were hurting Murray the last time they met.  Murray is also trying to be more offensive off the ground, especially off his backhand.  Although one can point to Ferrer’s dismantling of Cilic in the previous round, Cilic’s play has gone down some since he made the semifinals of the Australian Open and he is better on fast courts than slow courts.  The same can be said of Murray, to be fair.

Other news.  Nikolay Davydenko had withdrawn from the French Open.  He now joins Juan Martin del Potro as the two top seeds that won’t play the French.  Both were very good at the French last year, so they will be players that others will be happy not to see.