by Pete Bodo
What a (day and) night Down Under. Yesterday, I backed only one winner—Novak Djokovic. But what does it tell you in that learning of his straight sets win over Roger Federer, I was surprised. Conversely, when I watched and read that the women I had expected to slash their way to the final, Caroline Wozniacki and Vera Zvonareva, were both knocked out, I was not the least bit shocked.
I thought the opening match—Li Na vs. Wozniacki—was a terrific battle and great advertisement for the women's game. I imagine the final will be played out along similar lines, thanks in no small part to the attributes of Li Na. She has added some serious "big game" elements to her repertoire; wasn't it just two or three years ago that she appeared destined to be nothing more (or less) than an extremely patient, disciplined, smooth, consistent baseliner? No more. Like her counterpart on the ATP side, David Ferrer, Li has added sting to her rattle. I love the way she competes; it gives her a three-game advantage over most WTA players from the get-go.
My other takeaway from the match is that Wozniacki is a much better player than many think. She'll do just fine with the game she has (even if a legitimate weapon would be a nice addition). Wozniacki is a very big girl who plays like a small one, and her greatest assets are those that have nothing to do with her physical dimensions or even her strength or fitness. Her anticipation is terrific and her timing excellent (the way she stoops when taking a ball bouncing on or near her own baseline is a perfect emblem of her discipline, and an innate feel for how the game is played). She also has excellent composure and fighting spirit. Pile those virtues atop her excellent groundstrokes and good serve, package them in an impressive physical plant (it does look like she could be leaner, but forget that for now) and you've got a Grand Slam champ. Her day will come.
Many matches have a clear, identifiable turning point. There's something very satisfying about that, even though, when it comes to sheer drama, you can't beat a see-saw battle. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Li won the match in the late stages of the second set, starting with a Li break-back to level the score at 4-4. Li then survived a match point, and some of Wozniacki's most urgent, menacing forays over the two-game span that ended the set. It was as clear an example of "getting over the hump" as you could ask. It isn't often that a player back on her heels, as was the slow-starting Li, can mount so massive a fightback (Li won, 3-6, 7-5, 6-3; the scores are eloquent) against a player whose level does not appreciably drop.
Wozniacki gives you nothing; if you want to beat her you must take the match away, and Li was able to do that. Both women played with remarkable poise, determination and proficiency in those two critical games late in the second set. It was great to see.
So my dark horse, Li, is in the final, against the all-around favorite—and adopted Aussie—Kim Clijsters. I'll look at that match tomorrow, but first we have a little business to conduct tonight.
!Ferru Andy Murray (No. 5) vs. David Ferrer (No. 7): The mission for Murray, now that Federer and Rafael Nadal are both out of the Australian Open, is simple: Try to keep from thinking of what winning that first Grand Slam title might mean, lest your head explode. Or, at the very least, don't let Ferrer out-gut and out-guile you in a semifinal that will leave you feeling less like you want to take a swim in the Yarra river than hurl yourself into it from the highest bridge you can find.
On paper and in the pundit-o-sphere, Murray is practically a lock. But the head-to-head says otherwise, with Ferrer leading 3-2. The positive element in the H2H for Murray is that he won both of the matches they played on hard courts, and without losing a set. Just a few months ago, at the ATP World Tour Finals, Murray prevailed in their round-robin encounter, 6-2, 6-2. But Rod Laver Arena has a different, slower surface on which the ball is apt to bounce higher, which works in Ferrer's favor. That the match will be played at night helps Murray.
Quite honestly, I don't really have a strong feeling for how to handicap this one. Both men have airtight ground games, they both love to play defense and they return serve well. Ferrer's serve, once a real liability, has improved, and he places it awfully well. But it's still no knockout punch. He averages around 180 kph on his first serve and around 150 (remember, that's kph) on the second. I'm looking for Murray, a superb returner, to attack that serve.
In his last two hard-court majors, Ferrer lost a wild one (6-7 [4] in the fifth) to Fernando Verdasco at the U.S. Open, and another tough if less dramatic five-setter to Marcos Baghdatis in the second round of last year's Aussie Open. Ferrer is a guy who routinely makes his seed at tournaments, so he's lost to quality players at almost every major event. But one theme emerges from his Grand Slam hard-court record: He's had the most trouble with aggressive players. He's lost in straights to Marin Cilic and Novak Djokovic (twice), and has lost in four to Mikhail Youzhny and Mardy Fish.
So we'll see if Ferrer has incorporated some "big game" thinking into his evolution, to go along with that weaponized forehand. He probably will need to take the initiative against Murray, because the No. 5 seed is probably too inventive and unpredictable to beat with a grinder's game. Murray is not as aggressive a player as Djokovic, but he's in the same department as a mover, a returner, and an opportunist. Murray's transition from defense to offense is superb, and I think that's going to win him this match.