GRAND slam events are like living beasts, and in the second week they undergo a change of mood. Suddenly smiles are fewer, faces grimmer, nerves tighter.

In this second week, there is a lot more to lose, and not just money for grand slams are about history, tradition, reputation. But let's not totally ignore the money. You win the whole thing and it's worth (AUS)$1,620,000. For seven tennis matches? But then there was talk of paying Kaka 500,000 pounds a week. Really, the sporting world has gone berserk.

The good thing is at least the no-name, no-sponsor, cheap-hotel-living, hard-working journeymen get something back at grand slams. For losing in the first round you get nearly $20,000 and it might tide a struggling player over for a few weeks.

A few months ago, a young golfer, just starting out, told me at the Singapore Open that he hides his heavy hand baggage behind a pillar when he checks in for flights because he doesn't want to pay excess baggage. Beyond the well-fed champions, it's a tough world out there.

Anyway, back to the Open. The crowds are thinner because there are fewer matches. The outside courts are now dotted with junior players, most followed only by hopeful mothers and occasionally overeager fathers. These days kid start when they are even smaller than their rackets.

Which is why Rod Laver, most people's greatest-ever player because he has two grand slams (err, not two grand slam titles, but all four slams won in the same year on two occasions), made a necessary point this morning. He said that in an environment of big money, parents sometimes start focusing on those rewards rather than asking "Is my child enjoying her or his game".

Also out on the courts are the doubles teams, quicksilver fellows, who at their best look like they are playing rapid chess. Just as an aside, one of the best quotes in tennis came out of doubles.

When Peter Fleming, who won numerous titles with tennis' original Merlin, John McEnroe, was asked who the best twosome was, he memorably said: "John McEnroe and anyone." One thought: when they are older, and have a 100 titles under their stylish bests, wouldn't it be something to see Federer-Nadal playing doubles together in slam?

Meanwhile, we might have to just settle for both of them in the singles final this year. Which would be a first of sorts because they have never faced off in a hardcourt slam final (only two on grass in Wimbledon and three on clay at the French).

Federer will, I think, beat Roddick tomorrow night, but Fernando Verdasco, who plays Nadal, is emerging a genuine contender. Last year he was Ana Ivanovic's boyfriend; this year, after outlasting Andy Murray and today beating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, he is the story of the Open in the men's draw.

This always happens at the Australian Open, maybe because it's the first slam of the year and all the players aren't ready. But always a surprise contender springs up. Look at some of the recent finalists: Tsonga (2008), Fernando Gonzales (2007), Marcos Baghdatis (2006), Rainer Schuttler (2003), Arnaud Clement (2001), Thomas Enquist (1999). None ever reached another grand slam final.

Nadal hasn't lost a set yet, but Verdasco has a few advantages. First, his serve is lethal. Second, Nadal's phenomenal lefty forehand, with its heavy spin, plays havoc with right-handers because it naturally kicks cross-court to their backhand, usually the weaker wing. But Verdasco is a leftie as well and has his own forehand that stings worse than a headmaster's cane.

Should be quite a contest, but I don't see anyone beating Nadal here. Except Federer on his very best day.