Someone posted an article in the Federer forum with the following quote.
"Last year he lost (to Rafael Nadal) in the semifinals and this year he lost to the same player in the final. So we can see a definite improvement in his game," Roche noted.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the logic. He lost to the same player. I see no reason to believe he wouldn't have lost in the semis to him this year had they played then. What this shows me is that Nadal
improved between May 2005 and May 2006, to the point where he was seeded second and Federer guaranteed not to face him until the final. Federer didn't have to improve at all for this to happen (especially since his semifinal opponent had to retire).
I'm not saying Federer didn't
improve; I'm just saying his final loss to Nadal at the French Open compared to his semis loss to Nadal last year isn't evidence, quite the contrary.