That someone could beat Roger Federer after being down double match point in the fifth set is remarkable enough. To do it in two consecutive U.S. Open Semi-finals is almost enough to start the "Twilight Zone" music playing. And yet, history repeated itself in Djokovic's astonishing 6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5 victory over the man widely considered the greatest tennis player in the history of the sport. Few yardsticks can compare with Federer's 16 "Grand Slam" championships--the most of any man to ever to pick up a racquet. (Technically, what we have come to call "Grand Slams" should be called "Majors," but I will resort to the more common parlance because, as a fan, that's the way I think of them.)
There are, however, some asterisks we must factor in when viewing the "Slams." Happily, these asterisks do not involve steroids. In the overlapping period between the years in which the major championships were limited to amateurs and the "Open Era" (in which both amateurs and professionals could compete), there were a number of years in which greats such as Rod Laver were ineligible after he turned pro after his 1962 "Grand Slam." (Laver, by the way is one of only two men to ever win the "Grand Slam," which involves winning, in the same calendar year, each of the Majors: The Australian Open, The French Open, Wimbledon, and The U.S. Open. The other man was the great Don Budge. Laver, however, won the Grand Slam twice, an astonishing feat. But more of that later.)
While it is almost impossible to compare players across generations (e.g. Tilden vs. Borg), virtually every serious student of tennis grants that Laver's seven seasons of ineligibility for the "Slams" cost him one, perhaps, two championships per year. (Fellow Aussie Ken Rosewall, who turned pro a few years before Laver--and who was his greatest rival-- might have had a shot at that all-time record as well.) But Laver was still Laver, and stood head and shoulders above his competition. Just imagine someone winning the Grand Slam in 1962, and then winning again seven years later in his first year of regained eligibility. In any event, he would have had a good chance of matching or exceeding Federer's heady achievement. The are, of course, a lot of "what ifs" in sports. Ted Williams, for example, missed a number of seasons as he fought in two wars as a Marine aviator. Clearly, this cost him many home runs, perhaps even another .400 season.
Another serious argument against Federer's claim to preeminence is Rafael Nadal's clear dominance in head to head competition. If he is the greatest player of all time, what does that say about Nadal, who holds a 17-8 record over him, including a 5-2 edge in Grand Slam finals? None of this is meant to diminish Roger Federer's status as an all-time great. He is clearly that, and is still--at thirty--easily one of the top players in the game. While no longer number one, being number three in the world is, as they say, not too shabby.
Without laboriously dissecting Saturday's almost four-hour semi-final match, a short overview will be helpful. The first set found both players feeling each other out, playing good--but not great-- tennis. It ended in a close and exciting tie-breaker, with Federer emerging the victor. The second set was 6-4, and although close on paper, was all Federer. Federer had the amazing record of dominance (182-1) when up by two sets to love in a best of five format. His only loss was, tellingly, just last year, when the flashy Frenchman, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga came back from two sets down. That it happened at the relatively advanced age of 29 only signifies the slight differences that can begin to emerge with the passage of time. Djokovic faced a steep uphill climb, having only once in his career come back from two sets down in a Major.
The third set was also decided by a single break (6-3), with Djokovic cautiously doing what he had to do to get on the board. The fourth set was all Djokovic, so much so that it almost seemed as if the great Federer was "playing possum" in preparation for the inevitable--and decisive--5th set. We got a hint that Federer still had plenty "in the tank" when he came back from double set point to force Djokovic to serve for a 6-2 set. This insured that Federer would begin the 5th set as server. And serve he did.
While Djokovic had crawled back to even the match at two sets all, and seemed to have the momentum, Federer promptly snatched it back. Federer began the set at the top of his game, holding serve easily through his first three service games. Djokovic did so as well, but not as easily as Federer. Djokovic's improved serve has been one of the keys to the great year he has had in 2011, but Roger Federer still has one of the game's great (i.e effective) serves, something that he can call upon in times of need. Still "on serve" at 3-4, Djokovic ran into trouble on the first point. Federer had a frame-shot (a mis-hit that caroms off the frame of the racquet rather than firmly off the strings) that barely caught the right sideline, allowing Federer to smack Djokovic's off-balance return into the open court. Clearly frustrated by the partisan New York crowd, Federer held up his racquet and tapped the frame as if to say, "come on guys, this is nothing to applaud." It should be noted that the crowd was so pro-Federer that they were even applauding Djokovic double-faults, something once unheard of even among the most enthusiastic tennis fans. While we sometimes (secretly) welcome double faults both as competitors and spectators, it is not what fans have come to see, and certainly not something worthy of applause. Djokovic went on to lose the game "at love," and Federer, at 5-3, was finally serving for the match and a berth in the rain-delayed final, scheduled for late Monday afternoon to give both players a much-needed day of rest. Djokovic won the first point to go up 0-15, but Federer quickly served an ace, evening the score at 15-all. He won the next two points, and, at 40-15, victory seemed a foregone conclusion. Announcer Dick Enberg and "color" commentators John McEnroe and Mary Carillo had all but anointed Federer the victor. In truth, so had I.
And then, a strange thing happened. Deep in a hole against a man known for great serves, Djokovic was shown to nod, grimly. Was he conceding defeat? Hardly, it turned out. The camera focused again on Federer, stoic and determined. It then showed Djokovic, who nodded again, shaking his head, and pursing his lips downward. While psychologists can debate was this means in body language, to me it was a gesticulation that said, "stay tuned, you ain't seen nothin' yet." Now, mind you, I was as surprised at this as anyone, and later replayed my recording of the match to make sure I hadn't misunderstood it. I don't think I did. Djokovic was far from giving up. Ferderer served a wide serve, "only" 108 mph, but sharply angled. Djokovic returned it with a "go for broke" cross-court winner faster than the serve. The tennis fans who saw it will remember it forever. I know I will. The crowd went wild. John McEnroe commented, "not too shabby." Djokovic turned to the crowd, arms aloft, basking in the adulation he had been seeking for almost three and a half hours, and was finally receiving. All smiles, Djokovic, still down match point was jammed by a marvelous Federer first served that skidded deep and right into his body. Amazingly, he returned the serve. Federer, was in perfect position to hit an inside-out forehand winner--a shot he owns. But the ball hit the tightly stretched net just a little to the "ad" side of center, and bounced off the court. In an alternate universe (or at Wimbledon where the nets are not as tightly stretched), the ball might have trickled over the net as a match-winning net-cord. Federer would have then graciously raised his hand in the tennis tradition of "apologizing" for such shots. Instead, amazingly, it was deuce. Even though Federer still had the serve and the match on his racquet, there was a palpable sense that the momentum had shifted. Before you knew it, it was advantage Djokovic. Federer then hit an ace (which Dick Enberg called "a champion's ace") to even it once again at deuce. But a clearly reinvigorated Djokovic reeled off the next two points, and sat down at the cross-over, still trailing, but once again "on serve." He then held serve easily, and it was now 5-5. Everyone was wondering whether the great Federer could reach back and hold serve to force the tie-break that many in the crowd saw as the inevitable (and only fitting) conclusion to such a match. But, alas for the Federer faithful, it was not to be. Federer lost the first point when he sprayed a forehand wide. After evening the game at 15-all on an easy overhead, Federer netted what seemed like an easy backhand, to go down 15-30. At this point, commentator Dick Enberg observed that Federer was handling things "as well as any man we could imagine." He was obviously referring to the two blown match points, which, clearly, had gotten under Roger's skin. But hadn't Djokovic, in fact, handled the pressure far better than Federer, and isn't that what separates winners from losers, especially in tight matches such as this? Regardless, both Roger and Nole played a great point, lasting twenty-five exchanges until Djokovic painted the baseline on a shot, which Federer blocked back, setting up a Djokovic forehand winner (At this point, McEnroe referred to the shot clipping the baseline as another "get out of jail card" and he couldn't "believe he's in this position." I couldn't either and, I suspect, neither did Federer.) At 15-40, another extended rally (twenty-two exchanges) ended in (yet another) inside-out forehand winner. Federer had played well, but Djokovic was clearly on a roll. When the two were awaiting the cross-over in their seats, John McEnroe then observed that you couldn't tell by looking at Federer what was going on in his mind, even suggesting that it might have been a "practice session" for all one could tell. I disagree. While Federer was expressionless, this was clearly not a "happy camper."
The only question now was whether Djokovic could hold serve for the match, or whether Federer could break him to force a tie-breaker, something which would have driven the already crazed crowd completely out of their minds. When Djokovic netted a forehand on the second point to tie the game at 15-15 after Federer sprayed a forehand on the first point, we were at a moment of high drama. But that was where the drama ended. Federer netted the next two points, setting up double match point, the same position Federer had put Djokovic in ten minutes (and what seemed a lifetime) ago. After twenty-one ("count-em") bounces of the ball, Djokovic got the serve in, and Federer returned the serve long. With apologies to the late T.S. Eliot, this was how game set and match ended, "not with a bang, but a whimper." For Federer, it was a ghastly deja vu of his 2010 semi-final with Djokovic, when once before, dazzling strokes by Djokovic saved two match points. This was less a case of "who blinked first," than Federer being blinded by the light of Djokovic's "go for broke" strokes. When, in a post-match interview, Federer was asked about the loss, he replied in a manner both uncharacteristic of him and unbecoming of a great champion. He said--and I'm paraphrasing--that some people are taught from the juniors, when they are down 5-2 to hit the ball as hard as they can. That's not the way I learned. I rely on hard work and that's the way I've always played. The implication was somehow that Djokovic either didn't work as hard as Federer, or was somehow reckless or undisciplined in his approach to the game. To my eye, as a long-time student of the game (albeit still an amateur), Djokovic is every bit as disciplined as Federer. Indeed, as the record shows, Djokovic, upgraded his skill level from last year by working on his forehand and serve. The result elevated his ranking from a distant number three in the world (behind Nadal and Federer) to an undisputed number one. To the extent that this sometimes necessitates some audacious shot-making, Djokovic should be applauded for taking such risks. Federer simply would not be the great champion he is without taking such chances of the big points. In his heart of hearts, I suspect Federer understands this now all too well.
Regardless, it was Djokovic who would be facing Nadal in Open final, in his crack at making 2011 the career year it has been to date. As this blog goes to print, Djokovic went on to decisively beat Nadal in the Monday final, 6-2, 6-3, 6-7 (3), and 6-1. While the scores appear to indicate an easy victory, almost every point was hard-fought, with numerous rallies going beyond fifteen (and sometimes twenty-plus) exchanges. Nadal did all he could, and played a great match. But, as with Federer, it was not enough to stop the steamroller that Novak Djokovic has become. It is a marvelous thing that our three top men's players are not only as good as I any I can recall (clearly on a par with Borg, Connors and McEnroe) but outstanding gentlemen who are a credit to the sport.
There are, however, some asterisks we must factor in when viewing the "Slams." Happily, these asterisks do not involve steroids. In the overlapping period between the years in which the major championships were limited to amateurs and the "Open Era" (in which both amateurs and professionals could compete), there were a number of years in which greats such as Rod Laver were ineligible after he turned pro after his 1962 "Grand Slam." (Laver, by the way is one of only two men to ever win the "Grand Slam," which involves winning, in the same calendar year, each of the Majors: The Australian Open, The French Open, Wimbledon, and The U.S. Open. The other man was the great Don Budge. Laver, however, won the Grand Slam twice, an astonishing feat. But more of that later.)
While it is almost impossible to compare players across generations (e.g. Tilden vs. Borg), virtually every serious student of tennis grants that Laver's seven seasons of ineligibility for the "Slams" cost him one, perhaps, two championships per year. (Fellow Aussie Ken Rosewall, who turned pro a few years before Laver--and who was his greatest rival-- might have had a shot at that all-time record as well.) But Laver was still Laver, and stood head and shoulders above his competition. Just imagine someone winning the Grand Slam in 1962, and then winning again seven years later in his first year of regained eligibility. In any event, he would have had a good chance of matching or exceeding Federer's heady achievement. The are, of course, a lot of "what ifs" in sports. Ted Williams, for example, missed a number of seasons as he fought in two wars as a Marine aviator. Clearly, this cost him many home runs, perhaps even another .400 season.
Another serious argument against Federer's claim to preeminence is Rafael Nadal's clear dominance in head to head competition. If he is the greatest player of all time, what does that say about Nadal, who holds a 17-8 record over him, including a 5-2 edge in Grand Slam finals? None of this is meant to diminish Roger Federer's status as an all-time great. He is clearly that, and is still--at thirty--easily one of the top players in the game. While no longer number one, being number three in the world is, as they say, not too shabby.
Without laboriously dissecting Saturday's almost four-hour semi-final match, a short overview will be helpful. The first set found both players feeling each other out, playing good--but not great-- tennis. It ended in a close and exciting tie-breaker, with Federer emerging the victor. The second set was 6-4, and although close on paper, was all Federer. Federer had the amazing record of dominance (182-1) when up by two sets to love in a best of five format. His only loss was, tellingly, just last year, when the flashy Frenchman, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga came back from two sets down. That it happened at the relatively advanced age of 29 only signifies the slight differences that can begin to emerge with the passage of time. Djokovic faced a steep uphill climb, having only once in his career come back from two sets down in a Major.
The third set was also decided by a single break (6-3), with Djokovic cautiously doing what he had to do to get on the board. The fourth set was all Djokovic, so much so that it almost seemed as if the great Federer was "playing possum" in preparation for the inevitable--and decisive--5th set. We got a hint that Federer still had plenty "in the tank" when he came back from double set point to force Djokovic to serve for a 6-2 set. This insured that Federer would begin the 5th set as server. And serve he did.
While Djokovic had crawled back to even the match at two sets all, and seemed to have the momentum, Federer promptly snatched it back. Federer began the set at the top of his game, holding serve easily through his first three service games. Djokovic did so as well, but not as easily as Federer. Djokovic's improved serve has been one of the keys to the great year he has had in 2011, but Roger Federer still has one of the game's great (i.e effective) serves, something that he can call upon in times of need. Still "on serve" at 3-4, Djokovic ran into trouble on the first point. Federer had a frame-shot (a mis-hit that caroms off the frame of the racquet rather than firmly off the strings) that barely caught the right sideline, allowing Federer to smack Djokovic's off-balance return into the open court. Clearly frustrated by the partisan New York crowd, Federer held up his racquet and tapped the frame as if to say, "come on guys, this is nothing to applaud." It should be noted that the crowd was so pro-Federer that they were even applauding Djokovic double-faults, something once unheard of even among the most enthusiastic tennis fans. While we sometimes (secretly) welcome double faults both as competitors and spectators, it is not what fans have come to see, and certainly not something worthy of applause. Djokovic went on to lose the game "at love," and Federer, at 5-3, was finally serving for the match and a berth in the rain-delayed final, scheduled for late Monday afternoon to give both players a much-needed day of rest. Djokovic won the first point to go up 0-15, but Federer quickly served an ace, evening the score at 15-all. He won the next two points, and, at 40-15, victory seemed a foregone conclusion. Announcer Dick Enberg and "color" commentators John McEnroe and Mary Carillo had all but anointed Federer the victor. In truth, so had I.
And then, a strange thing happened. Deep in a hole against a man known for great serves, Djokovic was shown to nod, grimly. Was he conceding defeat? Hardly, it turned out. The camera focused again on Federer, stoic and determined. It then showed Djokovic, who nodded again, shaking his head, and pursing his lips downward. While psychologists can debate was this means in body language, to me it was a gesticulation that said, "stay tuned, you ain't seen nothin' yet." Now, mind you, I was as surprised at this as anyone, and later replayed my recording of the match to make sure I hadn't misunderstood it. I don't think I did. Djokovic was far from giving up. Ferderer served a wide serve, "only" 108 mph, but sharply angled. Djokovic returned it with a "go for broke" cross-court winner faster than the serve. The tennis fans who saw it will remember it forever. I know I will. The crowd went wild. John McEnroe commented, "not too shabby." Djokovic turned to the crowd, arms aloft, basking in the adulation he had been seeking for almost three and a half hours, and was finally receiving. All smiles, Djokovic, still down match point was jammed by a marvelous Federer first served that skidded deep and right into his body. Amazingly, he returned the serve. Federer, was in perfect position to hit an inside-out forehand winner--a shot he owns. But the ball hit the tightly stretched net just a little to the "ad" side of center, and bounced off the court. In an alternate universe (or at Wimbledon where the nets are not as tightly stretched), the ball might have trickled over the net as a match-winning net-cord. Federer would have then graciously raised his hand in the tennis tradition of "apologizing" for such shots. Instead, amazingly, it was deuce. Even though Federer still had the serve and the match on his racquet, there was a palpable sense that the momentum had shifted. Before you knew it, it was advantage Djokovic. Federer then hit an ace (which Dick Enberg called "a champion's ace") to even it once again at deuce. But a clearly reinvigorated Djokovic reeled off the next two points, and sat down at the cross-over, still trailing, but once again "on serve." He then held serve easily, and it was now 5-5. Everyone was wondering whether the great Federer could reach back and hold serve to force the tie-break that many in the crowd saw as the inevitable (and only fitting) conclusion to such a match. But, alas for the Federer faithful, it was not to be. Federer lost the first point when he sprayed a forehand wide. After evening the game at 15-all on an easy overhead, Federer netted what seemed like an easy backhand, to go down 15-30. At this point, commentator Dick Enberg observed that Federer was handling things "as well as any man we could imagine." He was obviously referring to the two blown match points, which, clearly, had gotten under Roger's skin. But hadn't Djokovic, in fact, handled the pressure far better than Federer, and isn't that what separates winners from losers, especially in tight matches such as this? Regardless, both Roger and Nole played a great point, lasting twenty-five exchanges until Djokovic painted the baseline on a shot, which Federer blocked back, setting up a Djokovic forehand winner (At this point, McEnroe referred to the shot clipping the baseline as another "get out of jail card" and he couldn't "believe he's in this position." I couldn't either and, I suspect, neither did Federer.) At 15-40, another extended rally (twenty-two exchanges) ended in (yet another) inside-out forehand winner. Federer had played well, but Djokovic was clearly on a roll. When the two were awaiting the cross-over in their seats, John McEnroe then observed that you couldn't tell by looking at Federer what was going on in his mind, even suggesting that it might have been a "practice session" for all one could tell. I disagree. While Federer was expressionless, this was clearly not a "happy camper."
The only question now was whether Djokovic could hold serve for the match, or whether Federer could break him to force a tie-breaker, something which would have driven the already crazed crowd completely out of their minds. When Djokovic netted a forehand on the second point to tie the game at 15-15 after Federer sprayed a forehand on the first point, we were at a moment of high drama. But that was where the drama ended. Federer netted the next two points, setting up double match point, the same position Federer had put Djokovic in ten minutes (and what seemed a lifetime) ago. After twenty-one ("count-em") bounces of the ball, Djokovic got the serve in, and Federer returned the serve long. With apologies to the late T.S. Eliot, this was how game set and match ended, "not with a bang, but a whimper." For Federer, it was a ghastly deja vu of his 2010 semi-final with Djokovic, when once before, dazzling strokes by Djokovic saved two match points. This was less a case of "who blinked first," than Federer being blinded by the light of Djokovic's "go for broke" strokes. When, in a post-match interview, Federer was asked about the loss, he replied in a manner both uncharacteristic of him and unbecoming of a great champion. He said--and I'm paraphrasing--that some people are taught from the juniors, when they are down 5-2 to hit the ball as hard as they can. That's not the way I learned. I rely on hard work and that's the way I've always played. The implication was somehow that Djokovic either didn't work as hard as Federer, or was somehow reckless or undisciplined in his approach to the game. To my eye, as a long-time student of the game (albeit still an amateur), Djokovic is every bit as disciplined as Federer. Indeed, as the record shows, Djokovic, upgraded his skill level from last year by working on his forehand and serve. The result elevated his ranking from a distant number three in the world (behind Nadal and Federer) to an undisputed number one. To the extent that this sometimes necessitates some audacious shot-making, Djokovic should be applauded for taking such risks. Federer simply would not be the great champion he is without taking such chances of the big points. In his heart of hearts, I suspect Federer understands this now all too well.
Regardless, it was Djokovic who would be facing Nadal in Open final, in his crack at making 2011 the career year it has been to date. As this blog goes to print, Djokovic went on to decisively beat Nadal in the Monday final, 6-2, 6-3, 6-7 (3), and 6-1. While the scores appear to indicate an easy victory, almost every point was hard-fought, with numerous rallies going beyond fifteen (and sometimes twenty-plus) exchanges. Nadal did all he could, and played a great match. But, as with Federer, it was not enough to stop the steamroller that Novak Djokovic has become. It is a marvelous thing that our three top men's players are not only as good as I any I can recall (clearly on a par with Borg, Connors and McEnroe) but outstanding gentlemen who are a credit to the sport.
