Djokovic’s impressive victory over Federer has been discussed at length, so I’m going to focus on the final here. In some ways, the final was just as important a victory as was toppling of the top seed. If Novak doesn’t back that win up – especially as the clear favorite – that would say a lot about him as a player. In tennis, when you break an opponent’s serve, it means nothing unless you can hold the next game. The same formula applies here. Djokovic did indeed hold on, defeating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to win his first Grand Slam title.
Against Federer, Djokovic did a lot of his damage from his serve. That wasn’t the case against Tsonga (Djokovic hit two fewer aces in a match that went a set further), but he used his transition game to greater effect. Tsonga bludgeoned the ball at various points throughout the match, reminding me of Marat Safin during his Aussie Open glory days. But for the most part, once rallies started to develop, it was the Serbian who had the upper hand. If Djokovic couldn’t get into a hitting contest with Tsonga right away, he used exceptional defense to counter Tsongas’s blistering forehand, which often turned the entire point around. It’s also worth noting that the spectacular volleys that Tsonga struck against Rafael Nadal were nowhere to be seen on Sunday’s final.
In the fourth set tiebreaker, I wasn’t sure what was going to happen. Tsonga looked pretty much out of the match at the beginning of the set, but willed his way back in with improved ground strokes and a newfound belief – aided by Djokovic’s supposed injury. If the Frenchman won the tiebreaker, all the momentum swings back in his corner (further amplified by the crowd, whichwas dying to see another set). But Djokovic took the thirteenth game with relative ease, giving him an important piece of hardware for his career. After all, if Djokovic lost the final, he would have gone 0-4 in titles the last four Grand Slams, despite reaching the semifinals or better in all of them. That’s when the pressure really would have mounted on Nole.
!MariaWTA – At the tender age of 20, Maria Sharapova has accomplished plenty in women’s tennis. She’s won
three Grand Slams, the most recent coming against Ana Ivanovic just a few days ago. She’s won a year-end championship, and gave last year’s undisputed number one, Justine Henin, her toughest post-Wimbledon test by far at the YEC in Madrid. She’s been ranked number one in the world. She has 13 other titles to her name. But she can accomplish much more.
In four months time, Sharapova has a chance to step into the elite circle of women who have completed the career Grand Slam. This, of course, can only be accomplished if Maria wins the French Open, but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that she’s ready to make this big leap.
Sharapova has played very well at Roland Garros before. She’s reached the quarterfinals or better at three of the last four French Opens, including a semifinal appearance last year. If you remember, she lost to Ivanovic badly, 6-2, 6-1. But would you bet against Sharapova if the two were drawn together once again? Confidence is a tough thing to rattle, and Sharapova could stand to benefit greatly from her dominant play in Melbourne.
Obviously, Justine Henin would be Sharapova’s toughest obstacle to overcome in Paris. But with the changing of the year comes a changing of the game’s landscape (look to the men for further proof of this), and it will take time for Henin to get back into her “invincible” mode that she wielded last year. The slate has been wiped clean, and 2007 seems like a long time ago. Who knows if Henin will be able to capture that same magic once again?
Sharapova will turn 21 in April. Should she complete the career Grand Slam, she’d become one of the youngest players to achieve it; only Maureen Connolly Brinker (18), Steffi Graf (19), and Margaret Smith Court (20) would be younger (Serena Willams was 21 when she accomplished the feat). It’s a tall order, for sure, but completing the Slam would give Sharapova an undeniable place in women’s tennis history, and would give her further separation from the mass of top-tier women who constantly shuffle around the top five (Venus, Serena, Jankovic, Ivanovic, Henin).
But something in me thinks that its Sharapova’s time, and I can’t help but think back to last year’s French Open for why that is. In one of the matches of the year, Sharapova narrowly got by Patty Schnyder in the fourth round, winning late in the third set, 3-6, 6-4, 9-7. Maria saved numerous match points, fended off a hostile crowd who was getting on her case for some antics during play, and ultimately defeated a strong, veteran player. She’ll need to call upon that same strength – which got her through hard times – as well as the strength she used to upstage her contemporaries at this year’s Australian Open (which was also hard times, but she made it look easy).
Tennis Theatre
I'm putting this clip from the 2004 French Open final between Gaston Gaudio and Guillermo Coria up for a few reasons. First, Coria is playing on the ATP Tour for the first time since August of 2006 this week at the Movistar Open in Vina del Mar. Second, when I was watching the Djokovic/Tsonga AO final, I could not, for the life of me, think of who the winner of the '04 French Open was, after I got thinking about Grand Slam winners during this decade. It took me at least four or five games to get the answer, and that was only after I remembered who Gaudio's opponent was - not the actual champion.
And third, take a look at this ill-fated ESPN score graphic. People railed on FOX for the glowing puck during their NHL broadcasts in the late '90s, but this is worse.
Next Week's Tournaments
Movistar Open (ATP - Clay - Vina del Mar, Chile)
- Singles Bracket
- Doubles Bracket
Fed Cup
World Group - First Round
- Israel vs. Russia
- USA vs. Germany
- China, P.R. vs. France
- Italy vs. Spain
World Group II - First Round
- Ukraine vs. Belgium
- Japan vs. Croatia
- Czech Republic vs. Slovak Republic
- Argentina vs. Austria
Televison Schedule (EST)
- Saturday, 4:00 am - 8:00 am: Israel vs. Russia (Tennis Channel, Live)
- Saturday, 9:00 am - 8:00 pm: Israel vs. Russia (Tennis Channel, Tape)
- Saturday, 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm: USA vs. Germany (Tennis Channel, Live)
- Saturday, 8:00 pm - 12:00 am: USA vs. Germany (Tennis Channel, Tape)
- Sunday, 4:00 am - 10:00 am: Israel vs. Russia (Tennis Channel, Live)
- Sunday, 1:30 pm - 7:30 pm: USA vs. Germany (Tennis Channel, Live)
- Sunday, 8:00 pm - 2:00 am: USA vs. Germany (Tennis Channel, Tape)
Beyond the Bracket
“For the first time, coming out of the Australian Open, in my mind, number one is up for grabs this year.”
Patrick McEnroe of ESPN said these once unfathomable words after being asked “What’s going to happen now?” by Chris Fowler in this video. The sentence is spoken right at the conclusion of the panel’s look back at Novak Djokovic’s defeat of Roger Federer in the Australian Open semifinals, which gives the statement a very portentous feel. But even if the segment was edited that way intentionally, I agree that the point needs to be considered. The theory is one of many things we can take away from the Australian Open, and it will linger on throughout 2008.
Tennis is structured in such a way that no particular tournament will allow a player to be crowned “champion.” Rather, the title of “champion” has to be earned throughout various events that each player competes in throughout the year. Whereas team sports declare a champion after a playoff, the best player in tennis is sometimes decided by debate. Often, there is no clear winner.
These subjective decisions also apply to accomplishments in the sport. For example, what is the most impressive Grand Slam tournament to win? One person might say it’s the U.S. Open, because the surface is the most “neutral” of the four Slams (obviously, that is up for debate as well). But another observer may declare that Wimbledon or Roland Garros is the toughest to win, because grass and clay court specialists that lurk in each passing round making winning the tournament harder to accomplish.
Another argument might be this – what’s more impressive, being the absolute best player at one surface so that no other player is even remotely in the discussion (as is the case with Rafael Nadal on clay), or, being the most versatile player on all surfaces (Federer)? Like the first question, there is no clear answer, and is a big reason why websites like this one exist.
But there is one achievement in tennis that definitively says a player is the best – the year-end number one ranking. Being the year-end number one means that you were measured as the best player in that calendar year, due to the success you had on different surfaces, in different conditions, and at different venues. You can’t simply get hot for two weeks and be called number one. The cumulative nature of the ranking makes it the clearest indicator of who tennis’ “champion” is, and is the gold standard that his contemporaries are measured against.
Because attaining the year-end number one ranking is such an exhaustive process, due to the amount of effort, consistency, and winning that is required, I feel that players who have achieved it are often not given the credit they deserve. Many critics decry the ranking system as a false method of determining who the better player is. “Let the play on the court decide,” is a common argument.
My response: the bulk of rankings probably are inconsequential – after all, most tennis fans would agree that the difference between the No. 15 and the No. 25 ranked players in the world is minimal. But at the very top, the rnaking is accurate. You can’t piece together a couple good results to reach the peak of the mountain (although you can to get close to it, as Jo-Wilfried Tsonga proved). Because of all this, I contend that Federer’s record of consecutive weeks atop the rankings is more impressive than his number of Grand Slam victories (now and in the future).
Last year, Nadal was leading the ATP points race well into the season, due to his flawless play on clay as well as his early-season success on hard courts. The media went wild over this. Although Nadal hadn’t passed Federer as the Number One ranked player in the world, the thought of him doing so based on what could happen led to widespread speculation that Federer’s grasp on men’s tennis was diminishing. This never did happen. Federer went on to keep the No. 1 ranking for the fourth consecutive year.
Considering how big of a deal that was, think about how big of a deal it will be if McEnroe’s words ring true this year. As astounding as Federer’s success has been, it will be just as astonishing to see someone put an end to it. There is no guarantee that it will happen, but Djokovic’s defeat of Federer – in such a clinical matter – certainly leaves me wondering what’s going to happen now.
If...
Tsonga, Gasquet, and the prominent doubles team of Llodra/Clement play the U.S. Davis Cup team (Roddick/Blake/Bryans) on an indoor hard court in Paris, who wins?
And, is this the best French side that can be fielded? (Mathieu, Simon, Santoro, Mahut, Grosjean, and Monfils are possible substitutes.)
