How would you rate this year’s Australian Open so far? At the risk of sounding perversely obvious, the first thought that comes to mind is that there’s been a lot to watch. That’s true for every Grand Slam, of course, but this one has brought us more than its share of five-set wars of attrition on the men’s side—watching Marin Cilic alone would have taken 10 hours out of your life—and more than its share of drama and surprise on the women’s. Remember Roddick-Gonzo? How about Henin-Dementieva? Tsonga-Almagro, Venus-Li, Serena-Azarenka anyone?
If this year’s Aussie has lacked anything, it’s been a signature instant classic. We’ve been spoiled over the last decade by the tournament’s ability to produce these highlight-reel spectacles. Will we get one from the finals? If we don’t, it won’t be for lack of opportunity. Serena vs. Justine is the match that the sport hoped to see at the beginning of the event. And while Roger Federer vs. Andy Murray doesn’t have quite the name-brand mass appeal that Federer vs. Rafa would have, it’s still the logical endpoint, and a healthy development for the game. If Nadal is going to be increasingly troubled by injuries going forward, Federer is going to need a new foil. And you can't find a better candidate than Murray.
First, there’s been tension between the two guys, more than there is between Federer and Nadal, who have formed a sort of two-man All Time Great Club over the last couple of years. Roger and Rafa have embraced the fact that, after the 2008 Wimbledon final, they’re destined to go down in history together. While Federer is clearly the king—a fact that Nadal never fails to point out—losing to someone 13 times tends to make you respect his game. Federer and Murray don’t dislike each other from what I can tell, but at various times Murray has been irritated by Federer’s “I just need to figure this kid out” attitude toward him, which he stuck to last season even after Murray had beaten him two straight times. Murray may have thought: “If the guy accepts Rafa as a rival, why can’t he at least start to accept me? I’ve got a winning record against him as well.” That’s what makes this match so intriguing. Federer wants to show that he really just did need to figure Murray out, that the king isn’t giving up his throne any time soon; while Murray, the new kid, the little brother, the heir apparent perhaps, wants to take his first step into that All Time Great Club. He can only do that by beating Federer where everyone, including Federer, accepts that it counts, in a major final. And you only get so many chances in your career to play them.
The second reason to appreciate this match-up, as well as Murray’s step forward, is that his game is too good, too interesting, for him not to make that step. The sport has had a versatile and stylish player at the top of the rankings for the better part of six years. I like Juan Martin del Potro as much as anyone, and I can be awed by his brute force, but it would be nice to think that Murray can continue the Federer tradition and contend for majors with a more subtle and artful game. More than del Potro and virtually everyone else on the tour today, Murray has the complete tennis skill set; the problem for him at the majors has been finding a way to put this advantage to use, to put himself in offensive positions and use his hands and touch and variety to finish points rather than just extend them. From Murray’s perspective, that will be the big question tomorrow night. At the World Tour Finals a couple months ago, he played passively against Federer and relied on his ability to run balls down and put his opponent in uncomfortable positions. It worked for a set, but it didn’t work for the next two sets, as Federer, like a man picking a lock, finally found the right combination of aggression and patience. He won the third set going away. Murray is going to have to do more than rely on his legs tomorrow night. He can't give Federer three sets to pick the lock again.
From Federer’s perspective, he must believe that the match will be on his racquet—he said as much about his encounters with Murray the last time they played. He comes in, as usual, in very good form. He blazed out of the gates against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in their semifinal, looking like a man happy and relaxed after surviving a scare, which he had, against Nikolay Davydenko in the previous round. Federer was so good, in such casual control, that it reminded me of his performances from the 2004 Australian Open, a tournament in which he basically toyed with the rest of the world’s best players. I wonder: Federer will be 29 this year, but has he declined in any way from his form of six years ago? Right now, I’d say that the only reason that he hasn’t been quite as dominant in the last two or three years is that Nadal was able to lift, for six-month periods at least, himself up to Federer’s level. Yes, Federer isn’t as dialed in or motivated at the lesser events now, and he no longer goes on 40-match win streaks, but in the specific two-week, seven-match, three-out-of-five set context of a Grand Slam, he’s still in the prime of his career. That’s why, despite Murray’s confidence boost, his younger legs, and his 6-4 record against Federer, I’m going with the guy who’s done this 21 times before.
Whoever wins, its hard to think of a match with so much to appreciate. The simplicity, even off-handedness of Federer’s serve—it really does look like he’s just tossing the ball up and hitting it. The footwork of Murray, the way he recovers after a shot, gets his feet dancing a mile a minute, hops high for a split step, and starts dancing again when he comes down. The way Federer puts his head into his slice backhand. The balanced and uncluttered way Murray takes his two-handed backhand back. Federer’s way of ignoring all the laws of technique as he flies forward to meet a forehand, hits it without bothering to set his feet, and keeps moving to the net as if he’s never swung at all. And that’s just the start with these two guys. This match could be an experience, a tennis immersion.
