Consider - standing in the way of Sir Roger are three men (Juan Martin Del Potro, Fernando Gonzalez and Soderling) with a combined 1-26 record against the Swiss virtuoso. If he were to indeed be standing on the winner's podium on Sunday afternoon in Paris he will not have had to play against any of the others residing in the top four of the ATP rankings - Nadal, Novak Djokovic or the man who has seemingly owned Federer of late, Andy Murray. And if he defeats Juan Martin Del Potro, seeded fifth, on Friday, then he will have had to beat only one of the top 11. Luck of the draw indeed!

A Federer triumph on the clay would give him a career Grand Slam and he'd join Fred Perry, Don Budge, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson and Andre Agassi as the only men to accomplish such a feat. It would also initiate a torrent of speculation, as many would argue with fierce certainty that this would finally legitimize and certify all those claims that he is the Greatest To Have Ever Played. But as I've said before, all that talk is pretty foolish.

But … would such a victory without having any obstacles - that is to say Nadal - detract from the accomplishment? Yes and no. It'd be patently unfair to diminish the achievement on the grounds that his draw opened up. No one seemed to complain when Agassi beat journeyman Andrei Medvedev for his only Paris crown (but then again Agassi did have to defeat defending champion Carlos Moya in the fourth round en route to the French title). There have been many Slam titles won in the Open era where the eventual champion was the beneficiary of an easy draw. And Roger has after all been to the last three finals at Roland Garros so he's been ever so close - except in the finals when he has made nary a dent in Nadal's clay armor. So logic would dictate that he's due a lucky year, that he's put in the grueling work on clay and he does have several Masters Series titles on the red dirt.

However, a Federer triumph would lack the drama that this achievement would warrant, in fact demand. Would Nadal finally winning at Wimbledon have been as dramatic and important if he had defeated Djokovic or Murray in as close a contest? No, not even close. The fact that he beat Federer on The Roger's sacred turf is what made last year's epic match so eternal and wondrous. It was fitting, correct and poetic that Nadal's win last year on the sport's biggest stage came against his chief rival. A sports analogy is apt here. The Red Sox's long-awaited World Series crown in 2004 would have been incredible for their legions of fans no matter whom they faced. But it was beating the Yankees in the ALCS that was most rewarding.

All this is premature chatter anyway as there are three matches to be played before a winner is crowned on Sunday. And Federer's semifinal opponent Friday afternoon is a very dangerous player who has waltzed through the first five rounds relatively unnoticed. Juan Martin Del Potro has the tools to bother Federer, especially his relentless groundstrokes that could pin Federer in his more uncomfortable backhand corner. Del Potro is overdue when it comes to performing in Slams and this will be his breakthrough. I believe that if Del Potro doesn't suffer the mental lapses he seems to get when facing top-ranked players he will defeat Federer and go on to face Fernando Gonzalez in Sunday's final.

We all knew after Monday that the tournament would indeed conclude unexpectedly when Nadal was knocked out. And baffled expectations and surprises will continue to be the theme of this year's event as Federer will not be playing for the title on Sunday either.